NationStates Jolt Archive

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?

The two-front war thing on Hitler's turf was a huge mistake for the German power. This much is a given.

However, the Japanese made no mistake attacking Pearl Harbor. It was precipitated by the United States freezing all exports of Oil (among other things) to Japan, which was 90% of their supply. Fearing they would not have the oil to continue the war effort, they determined to hit the United States fast and hard, drive them back, and bring them to the bargaining table to get their oil back.

Tragically for the Japanese, it failed.

Interestingly enough, Hitler could have easily won the war if he had reinforced Rommel in North Africa. Had the Afrika Korps pushed through the Middle East and captured the oil fields there (Iraq was also Axis-friendly), then pushed up to the border of Russia, Turkey would have been isolated and forced to surrender to Hitler rather than staying neutral.

Once they were in that position, Hitler could have cut up from the Caucus mountains, seizing the Russian oil fields and crippling the USSR while they still trusted Germany. That way, the costly northern attack would have never happened, and Europe and Russia would be speaking German. Britain would have fallen quickly once Russia was out of the picture, and even the United States would have been powerless to resist.

Thank God Hitler was a moron.

The two-front war thing on Hitler's turf was a huge mistake for the German power. This much is a given.

However, the Japanese made no mistake attacking Pearl Harbor. It was precipitated by the United States freezing all exports of Oil (among other things) to Japan, which was 90% of their supply. Fearing they would not have the oil to continue the war effort, they determined to hit the United States fast and hard, drive them back, and bring them to the bargaining table to get their oil back.

Tragically for the Japanese, it failed.

Did Russia have oil fields back then?

Interestingly enough, Hitler could have easily won the war if he had reinforced Rommel in North Africa. Had the Afrika Korps pushed through the Middle East and captured the oil fields there (Iraq was also Axis-friendly), then pushed up to the border of Russia, Turkey would have been isolated and forced to surrender to Hitler rather than staying neutral.

Once they were in that position, Hitler could have cut up from the Caucus mountains, seizing the Russian oil fields and crippling the USSR while they still trusted Germany. That way, the costly northern attack would have never happened, and Europe and Russia would be speaking German. Britain would have fallen quickly once Russia was out of the picture, and even the United States would have been powerless to resist.

Thank God Hitler was a moron.

Hmmm *take notes*

Did Russia have oil fields back then?

Not on the end Japan would be attacking from.

Interestingly enough, Hitler could have easily won the war if he had reinforced Rommel in North Africa.

Of course no. Maybe if he succeeded, he could last a year more or two more. His forces were never up to the task. Either Russia or US, even one of them alone, would kick the Germany down and that's it. The luck he had with a surprise strike on the small European Russia would never be repeated with the large and prepared Asian Russia, and the luck Japan had with Pearl Harbor was a one-off deal.

Not on the end Japan would be attacking from.

Yea, but if Germany and Japan forced Russia into a two front war, the Germans could've captured the oil field, and along with the Middle East oil fields...Japan wouldn't need to drag the USA into the war.

Of course no. Maybe if he succeeded, he could last a year more or two more. His forces were never up to the task. Either Russia or US, even one of them alone, would kick the Germany down and that's it. The luck he had with a surprise strike on the small European Russia would never be repeated with the large and prepared Asian Russia, and the luck Japan had with Pearl Harbor was a one-off deal.

I disagree. First off, European Russia is Russia. Without the vital supplies of oil from the Caucus region, the massive Russian tank battalions would have never been a reality, and the Russian infantry would have been crushed under the weight of a German blitzkrieg. The fact that it's a surprise attack means little, and I didn't mean for that to be a focal point--the more important thing is that it was before the Russian counter-attacks could have been possible, which really happened over the course of the harsh northern Russian winter.

Just play HoI2. It'll teach you everything you need to know.

The history books dont normally include the fact that we blockaded Japan precipitous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And Stalin purportedly killed almost 30 million Jews, 5 times what Hitler supposedly did. jRead more and google Zeitgeist the movie. Open your mind to reality, not what the schools cram down our throats

The history books dont normally include the fact that we blockaded Japan precipitous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And Stalin purportedly killed almost 30 million Jews, 5 times what Hitler supposedly did. jRead more and google Zeitgeist the movie. Open your mind to reality, not what the schools cram down our throats

We're discussing military tactics, but thanks for playing.

The history books dont normally include the fact that we blockaded Japan precipitous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And Stalin purportedly killed almost 30 million Jews, 5 times what Hitler supposedly did. jRead more and google Zeitgeist the movie. Open your mind to reality, not what the schools cram down our throats

Oh God, one page and we're already getting into conspiracy theories...can we at least attempt to keep this a sane conversation?

Oh God, one page and we're already getting into conspiracy theories...can we at least attempt to keep this a sane conversation?

Agreed, I would like to keep this about German's military tactics.

He wasted resources building stupidly huge and complex weapons that never saw the light of day, or, if they did, weren't as effective as their more practical Allied counterparts.
Seriously, how many super-heavy tanks does one Reich need? And then there was the V-weapons program, which managed to vaguely annoy the UK while Germany was leveled by strategic bombing.

Agreed, I would like to keep this about German's military tactics.

On that note, does anyone realize that most of the German army was not mechanized? It's an interesting and little-known fact, but the vast majority of units still used horses for supply--they just didn't ride them into battle like the Poles.

LOL. I love the Polish.

However, the Japanese made no mistake attacking Pearl Harbor. It was precipitated by the United States freezing all exports of Oil (among other things) to Japan, which was 90% of their supply. Fearing they would not have the oil to continue the war effort, they determined to hit the United States fast and hard, drive them back, and bring them to the bargaining table to get their oil back.

Tragically for the Japanese, it failed.

Wrong they didn't need US oil. They seized Malaysia (home to British Petroleum) And the Dutch East Indies ( home to Shell oil). they attacked because they feared the US would try and help the British get those colonies back by linking up the Hawaii and Philippine navies.

I was watching some documentary thingy on History (Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Television), Not Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_channel)). It basically said that Blitzkrieg wouldn't have worked in Russia because of the Cold Climate and muddy terrain. That's about all I know.

Anyone want to elaborate on that?

Soviet deep operations enabled them to counteract the blitzkrieg with increasing effectiveness as the war dragged on and the Germans were forced to operate in conditions increasingly ill-suited to their armor and mechanized operations. Furthermore, Soviet tanks were generally superior at handling that difficult terrain which enabled them to better outmaneuver and defeat German units.

However, it's important to note Hitler had nothing to do with the concept of blitzkrieg. It was developed first and foremost by Heinz Guderian and the German general staff during the 1930's, and was based on previous ideas regarding fast, mobile offensives seen in the early years of WWI.

A War between the Germans and the Soviets was certain, only The Germans decided to strike first. If the Germans had developed long range bombers to pulverize the Soviet Factories behind the Urals, and if Hitler had the Generals do the fighting for him, and cut off the cauccassus from Soviet infrastructure they would have won no doubt. They could then have bombed Britain into submission(targeting infrastructure and military bases, instead of civilians ), and peace would have been declared, in German favor.

I was watching some documentary thingy on History (Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Television), Not Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_channel)). It basically said that Blitzkrieg wouldn't have worked in Russia because of the Cold Climate and muddy terrain. That's about all I know.

Anyone want to elaborate on that?

It goes back to what I was saying about the Caucus (southern) attack versus a "March on Moscow" (northern) attack. Attacking through the steppes only hurt Hitler and his tank-heavy (literally) units, while fighting in the mountains of the Caucus region may have worked to his highly-experienced troop's advantage.

The Russian winter is what sealed Hitler's fate, and had he attacked via the south, he could have cut off Russian oil and ended the war before the winter set in. Alternatively...he could have given his troops gloves. Seriously.

Germany just didnt finish what it started. It was too ambitious. If it conquered all of Europe and removed the underground revolutions before starting with the russians we would be in a german world today

A War between the Germans and the Soviets was certain, only The Germans decided to strike first. If the Germans had developed long range bombers to pulverize the Soviet Factories behind the Urals, and if Hitler had the Generals do the fighting for him, and cut off the cauccassus from Soviet infrastructure they would have won no doubt. They could then have bombed Britain into submission(targeting infrastructure and military bases, instead of civilians ), and peace would have been declared, in German favor.

The Germans focused on the wrong areas to develop. It wasn't about who made the best tanks (which they did), It was about who made the most tanks.


It wasn't about who made the best fighter it was about who made the most.

It wasn't about who's army units could cover the most ground the quickest it was about who could fight the longest.

Having totally suckass allies(italy, romania) didn't help.

The Germans focused on the wrong areas to develop. It wasn't about who made the best tanks (which they did), It was about who made the most tanks.

Exactly. The American Sherman was simply terrible compared to the Tiger, but they were able to create four of them for every Tiger and simply overwhelm the Germans. Had Hitler focused on the Panzer IV and Panthers (lets not forget some of those tank killers on the Eastern Front, though), he would have delayed the end of the war. Still, by that point, the Russians would be churning out T-34's like there was no tomorrow.

The Germans focused on the wrong areas to develop. It wasn't about who made the best tanks (which they did), It was about who made the most tanks.


It wasn't about who made the best fighter it was about who made the most.

It wasn't about who's army units could cover the most ground the quickest it was about who could fight the longest.

Under ideal conditions where the generals, not Hiltler, commanded the army, They had the right ideas. For their time, man to man they had the best military in the world, the best tanks, the best weapons, and the best training. Problem was, they took on the entire world. Just Germany, one on one with the Soviets, would be victory for the Germans.

Under ideal conditions where the generals, not Hiltler, commanded the army, They had the right ideas. For their time, man to man they had the best military in the world, the best tanks, the best weapons, and the best training. Problem was, they took on the entire world. Just Germany, one on one with the Soviets, would be victory for the Germans.

the best cost more and the advantages of having the best fade after a certain point. at the peak of production (for both sides) The US was able to produce more submarines then Germany could make torpedoes.

And they didn't have the best long range bombers.

Good assessments from everyone -- but y'all forgot about the mistake Hitler made when he invaded Russia ... in the middle of winter!

OOOPS! I was just informed by Leistug (sp?) that he invaded in the summer!

Either way, invading Russia was a mistake ...

Thanks.

Good assessment -- but you forgot about the mistake Hitler made when he invaded Russia ... in the middle of winter!

He invaded in the summer--the Russians counter-attacked in the winter.

Hitler really messed up when he demanded that the jet the Luftwaffe was developing be more along the lines of a bomber than a pure fighter aircraft. Control of the skies was an absolute necessity when even considering invading Britain.

Ooops! Thanks, Leistung!

He invaded in the summer--the Russians counter-attacked in the winter.
The timing of Operation Barbarossa is an issue, though. Hitler held his forces back in Yugoslavia to deal with unrest, delaying Operation Barbarossa by a month, and it has been argued that the delay cost him victory.

If Italy hadn't been so tragically incompetent in the Balkans, then Germany wouldn't have had to divert forces to the region, and wouldn't have had to delay Barbarossa as long as they did.

They couldn't blitzkrieg us over 26 miles of heavily mined and air-patrolled coast, and they couldn't keep the logistical effort up over 2000 miles of Eastern European and then Russian land. That's about it.

I was watching some documentary thingy on History (Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Television), Not Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_channel)). It basically said that Blitzkrieg wouldn't have worked in Russia because of the Cold Climate and muddy terrain. That's about all I know.

Anyone want to elaborate on that?
Yeah, in the extreme cold of Russian winters the Germans needed to run their tanks all the time so they wouldn't freeze up (causing a pretty heavy demand on fuel, which the Germans never had much spare of anyway), and mud being Rasputitsa for about a third of the year messes your wheeled vehicles up, as well as the originally thin-base tracks of early-ish (c. 1942, they got sorted out by 1943) German tracked vehicles.

The timing of Operation Barbarossa is an issue, though. Hitler held his forces back in Yugoslavia to deal with unrest, delaying Operation Barbarossa by a month, and it has been argued that the delay cost him victory.
I would argue that that extra month meant nothing, as it just replaced one horrible condition logistically with another one.

The German's mistake is that they weren't American

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.
Correct.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two.
Wrong.

The Blitzkrieg worked perfectly against the Russians too. The problem was, it just wasn't enough. Germany did not have as many resources and men as the Russians did, end of line. The Russians overwhelmed the Germans through mass amounts of people, not by exploiting bad tactics. (On the whole, the Germans were far more tactically capable than the Russians, especially since the Russians had stupidly gotten rid of a lot of their most competent officers in the Purges.)

They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Pfft. Sealion was impossible. There was no way for Germany to ever successfully invade Britain without a POD long before the war started.

Furthermore, the Germans and the Japanese did not really coordinate their efforts very well because their alliance was one of convenience.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

Incorrect. The Japanese had been depending upon the United States for oil and other resources. In fact, that's the whole reason Japan went to war against China: resources. Japan desperately needed the oil and scrap metal and other things the United States provided, which were all cut off following the Nanjing massacre, and were not to be restored unless Japan got out of China.

Japan was stuck with a crossroads of two equally bad options. One, to get out of China and thus let the United States and the other white-ruled nations dictate their ruling policies(Absolutely unacceptable to the fanatically racist and proud leadership) or to avenge the loss of pride and attack the United States.

Truly, Japan's best option would have been to stay out of the European involvements entirely, rather than getting involved with everyone. Japan tried to do far too many things far too fast. Remember, as early as less than a century prior, they were a backwater, as they had been for most of their history. Japan was a success story, but they bit off more than they could chew.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.
In order for this to change, the very principles that caused the war to begin in the first place would have to change, and odds are Hitler wouldn't be leading Germany anyway, assuming that whoever did lead Germany was stupid enough to get involved in war of this magnitude.

Germany did not have the industrial resources to fight everyone, full stop. It simply wasn't possible.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?

I've given you my thoughts. My thoughts are, it doesn't matter what Hitler does differently. If the POD is no sooner than September 1st, 1939, Germany loses. End of story.

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?

1. Not invading the UK in 1941. At the time, they could very likely have succeeded.
2. Attacking the USSR. The war between Communism and National Socialism could have waited a generation.
3. Declaring war on the United States.

The German's mistake is that they weren't AmericanJust had to throw it in for the lulz, right? :p

1. Not invading the UK in 1941. At the time, they could very likely have succeeded.
No. No they couldn't have. The Kriegsmarine was not capable of standing up to the Royal Navy, and they had no real transportation fleet to speak of.

It'd have resulted in a shorter war due to the massive loss of troops.

2. Attacking the USSR. The war between Communism and National Socialism could have waited a generation.
Stalin would have attacked eventually, and probably pretty soon at that. By taking the initiative, Hitler was at least doing something right. Of course, Germany couldn't have won against Russia no matter what they did...

3. Declaring war on the United States.
True. They could have avoided this, and Roosevelt would have been hard pressed to force the American people to accept a war against Germany as well.

It would have still resulted in a German loss, however.

1. Not invading the UK in 1941. At the time, they could very likely have succeeded.
No, they couldn't have. The quickest way across was mined and outstandingly heavily patrolled, and every other way would have led into British taskforces. The Kriegsmarine couldn't get across the Bay of Biscay, and for this reason no attack would have been successful.
2. Attacking the USSR. The war between Communism and National Socialism could have waited a generation.
Not bloody likely, it was going to end in war one way or the other.
3. Declaring war on the United States.
The US would have chipped in in terms of soldiers eventually.

I really have to contest that, the Germans in their development were well on their way to a nuclear weapon, but fortunately we defeated them prior to its completion. The V2 rocket combined with this would have brought Nuclear missiles to the stage well before anyone could handle such terror, and it is undoubted Hitler would use any means to attain victory. Prototypes such as jet fighters, assault rifles (MP44), and Tiger tanks were all precursors to the modern weapons of today's battlefield, and Hitler was well on his way to making each of these advancements practical as they tested the early models in combat.
Hitler's resources weren't wasted so much as misplaced- he prepared for the allies to invade through Northern Italy with General Patton even though he had intelligence that the Allies were planning Operation Overlord ( Normandy, France). If he had placed the bulk of his troops in Normandy, the invasion may have very well failed as the entire operation struggled against a worn detachment of the German Army, and could have lost as early as the town of Carentan.
Lastly, invading Russia is ALWAYS a bad idea. US tried it in WW1 (little known fact) and failed, Napoleon tried it and failed, Nazi Germany tried it and, in similar fashion, failed. RUSSIA IS COLD, and the winters combined with the age old Russian tactic of scorched earth in which they leave no resources for the advancing invaders, kill many troops and incapacitate many more outside of the relentless onslaught of the Russian peasants armed with merely a rifle and nationalism. All the invasions of Russia that took place in the winter failed miserably. Breaking this ceasefire early was Hitlers greatest mistake.
As for the effectiveness of Allied technology, the allies had little success with their Sherman tanks (built tall and thin, easy for penetration and destruction, but better for transport) and their early fighter planes. While later with the experience of the Pacific theater the US would improve their planes, the tanks were unmatched against the German Panzer 4, Panther, and Tiger tanks, the only exception being the M26 Pershing which held its own in its small part of WWII. The allies did have success with small arms such as the British Enfield, American M1 Garand, M1 carbine, Thompson sub machine gun, Browning Automatic, and Springfield commonly used as a sniper weapon of choice. Despite their success, the German MG42 HMG and LMG and the MP40 and MP44 made for formidable adversaries as the standard German rifle was the KAR 98, a bolt action rifle, lackluster in comparison to the semi-automatic M1 Garand.

I really have to contest that, the Germans in their development were well on their way to a nuclear weapon, but fortunately we defeated them prior to its completion. The V2 rocket combined with this would have brought Nuclear missiles to the stage well before anyone could handle such terror, and it is undoubted Hitler would use any means to attain victory.
Yeah but we British and the Norwegians sort of sorted that shit out. Good times.
Prototypes such as jet fighters, assault rifles (MP44), and Tiger tanks were all precursors to the modern weapons of today's battlefield, and Hitler was well on his way to making each of these advancements practical as they tested the early models in combat.
The Tiger was about as much of a precursor to modern weapons as the IS-2. IE not really at all. The closest thing to a 'modern tank' in the second world was was the T-44, or the ever-so-slighty-too-late-but-stfu British Centurion tank.

Jet fighters and assault rifles were pretty swish, not that assault rifles hadn't been used in the Great War by the Russians, mind.

Actually, the Germans would not have successfully arrived at a nuclear weapon before probably sometime in 1950. Heisenburg and the research team involved were working with scant resources--especially intellectual resources--and a number of mistaken assumptions.

No, they couldn't have. The quickest way across was mined and outstandingly heavily patrolled, and every other way would have led into British taskforces. The Kriegsmarine couldn't get across the Bay of Biscay, and for this reason no attack would have been successful.

Not bloody likely, it was going to end in war one way or the other.

The US would have chipped in in terms of soldiers eventually.

1. I disagree. Heavy bombardment on the ports followed by fallshimjaegers, followed by amphibious assault might have worked. Of course, this would have required the Germans to not have been so lenient at Dunkirk.

2. Yes, but it could have waited. Better to fight the USSR in 1955 when the rest of the continent is under heel and you're not wasting one million men as a police force. If Britain had crumbled, all the better.

3. Yes, but the monetary loans and arms shipments to the UK and USSR was much more valuable in terms of the defeat of Germany than American military action in Africa and even Italy.

1. I disagree. Heavy bombardment on the ports followed by fallshimjaegers, followed by amphibious assault might have worked. Of course, this would have required the Germans to not have been so lenient at Dunkirk.
Crete much?

(btw it's Fallschirmjäger)
2. Yes, but it could have waited. Better to fight the USSR in 1955 when the rest of the continent is under heel and you're not wasting one million men as a police force. If Britain had crumbled, all the better.
If you think that Stalin would have let Hitler consolidate after Britain, you are pretty wrong.
3. Yes, but the monetary loans and arms shipments to the UK and USSR was much more valuable in terms of the defeat of Germany than American military action in Africa and even Italy.
Aye, but it didn't exactly help the Germans along.

1. I disagree. Heavy bombardment on the ports followed by fallshimjaegers, followed by amphibious assault might have worked. Of course, this would have required the Germans to not have been so lenient at Dunkirk.
The ports are scattered across the British Isles, including the really important port at Scapa Flow, which is all the way at the most northern tip of Scotland. The kind of air superiority required for this sort of campaign did not and would never exist for the Germans.

Added to that, naval bombing was not that successful yet. It was getting close, but it wasn't there to the point required.

2. Yes, but it could have waited. Better to fight the USSR in 1955 when the rest of the continent is under heel and you're not wasting one million men as a police force. If Britain had crumbled, all the better.

The Soviet Union wouldn't have waited until 1955. The Soviet Union would have kicked the door down sometime in 1944 or so had the Germans not already invaded three years prior. And the Germans would still have lost.

3. Yes, but the monetary loans and arms shipments to the UK and USSR was much more valuable in terms of the defeat of Germany than American military action in Africa and even Italy.

For the U.K., perhaps, but the support to the Russians was only crucial in terms of the speed of the war. The Russians would have eventually won in any event, just at a much slower pace.

No. No they couldn't have. The Kriegsmarine was not capable of standing up to the Royal Navy, and they had no real transportation fleet to speak of.

It'd have resulted in a shorter war due to the massive loss of troops.

Stalin would have attacked eventually, and probably pretty soon at that. By taking the initiative, Hitler was at least doing something right. Of course, Germany couldn't have won against Russia no matter what they did...

True. They could have avoided this, and Roosevelt would have been hard pressed to force the American people to accept a war against Germany as well.

It would have still resulted in a German loss, however.

As said in my other reply, YES it could have. They didn't have to stand up to the British Navy -- all they had to do was destroy the Naval ports.
If successful, it'd have ended the war as the US would not have been involved, the USSR not attacked and who's left?

Stalin was in a DEEP state of shock when Hitler broke the pact and attacked the USSR. There is no reason whatsoever to assume he'd attack Germany, what with that recent purge of the Soviet Army officers and the threat of the Japanese moving out of Manchuria into the Far East.
And Germany very nearly BEAT Russia. Heck, had Germany not wasted six weeks saving the Italians in Jugoslavia... they probably would have.

Exactly.

Perhaps, but not necessarily the same way it went. Perhaps even a seperate peace as was desired in WW1 (assuming some very positive outcomes).

If you want to learn more about this POV, check out:
http://images.biggerbooks.com/images/d/7/758/9780674557758.jpg
I read it as an undergrad when I took History of Modern Germany.

As said in my other reply, YES it could have. They didn't have to stand up to the British Navy -- all they had to do was destroy the Naval ports.
With what in 1941?

A smattering of Destroyers, most of which would have to take a multi-thousand kilometer trip to hit, say, Scarborough, all of the time getting attacked by the vastly superior Royal Navy, backed by the RAF which the Luftwaffe wouldn't have been able to touch much north of Birmingham.

The ports are scattered across the British Isles, including the really important port at Scapa Flow, which is all the way at the most northern tip of Scotland. The kind of air superiority required for this sort of campaign did not and would never exist for the Germans.

Added to that, naval bombing was not that successful yet. It was getting close, but it wasn't there to the point required.

The Soviet Union wouldn't have waited until 1955. The Soviet Union would have kicked the door down sometime in 1944 or so had the Germans not already invaded three years prior. And the Germans would still have lost.


For the U.K., perhaps, but the support to the Russians was only crucial in terms of the speed of the war. The Russians would have eventually won in any event, just at a much slower pace.

I must totally disagree. The Luftwaffe was wasted in the Battle of Britain. Had different targets been chosen, they most certainly could have laid waste to ports spread out over an area about the size of what? Oregon?

Why? I've already posted why not. Why would Stalin bother attacking?

No. The Russians could never have defeated Germany on their own. Without Germany having to defend the Atlantic Wall and defend Italy, they would have likely defeated the USSR.

You don't seem to understand:

THE RESOURCES DID NOT EXIST.

The Royal Navy was by far the most powerful navy in the world at that time. The Kriegsmarine, by comparison, was suitable only for convoy raiding. An important task, but that's all they could do.

Germany was one of the most industrialized nations in the world, and perhaps THE foremost industrial power, but even they could only do so much.

Now, had Germany somehow gotten the United States as an ally, then yeah, they'd have won, but that would have required something rather ridiculous.

In order for what you suggest to be possible, Germany would need many more resources they simply didn't have. Period.

With what in 1941?

A smattering of Destroyers, most of which would have to take a multi-thousand kilometer trip to hit, say, Scarborough, all of the time getting attacked by the vastly superior Royal Navy, backed by the RAF which the Luftwaffe wouldn't have been able to touch much north of Birmingham.

Who cares about attacking the ships? Attack the ports with aircraft.

Scapa Flow is within easy distance of the U-Boat fleet and aircraft via Norway or even Denmark. The rest of the UK? No problem at all.

You don't seem to understand:

THE RESOURCES DID NOT EXIST.

The Royal Navy was by far the most powerful navy in the world at that time. The Kriegsmarine, by comparison, was suitable only for convoy raiding. An important task, but that's all they could do.

Germany was one of the most industrialized nations in the world, and perhaps THE foremost industrial power, but even they could only do so much.

Now, had Germany somehow gotten the United States as an ally, then yeah, they'd have won, but that would have required something rather ridiculous.

In order for what you suggest to be possible, Germany would need many more resources they simply didn't have. Period.

You don't seem to undertand: I DON'T CARE about the Royal Navy! If they cannot refuel, they are targets. Ruin their ports and the game is up.

Agreed. And nothing I'd even consider as a possibility. But the US not involved in Europe would have helped.

And the captured portion of the French Navy couldn't be used for transport... why?

I must totally disagree. The Luftwaffe was wasted in the Battle of Britain. Had different targets been chosen, they most certainly could have laid waste to ports spread out over an area about the size of what? Oregon?
Eh the Germans didn't have any heavy bombers, and their fighters didn't have the range to protect them over most of the UK. They absolutely could not lay waste to our ports, which, as you may know, are made of concrete instead of, say, wood and bricks.
Why? I've already posted why not. Why would Stalin bother attacking?
Because he really didn't like Nazism and was a paranoid nutcase?
No. The Russians could never have defeated Germany on their own. Without Germany having to defend the Atlantic Wall and defend Italy, they would have likely defeated the USSR.
70% of German troops and tanks fought on the Eastern front even when the British and Americans were on the West wall and in Italy. If he'd have had the element of surprise on his side, I have no doubt that Stalin could win. Even without he could have, it would just have taken Bloody Ages.

Who cares about attacking the ships? Attack the ports with aircraft.

Scapa Flow is within easy distance of the U-Boat fleet and aircraft via Norway or even Denmark. The rest of the UK? No problem at all.

You don't seem to undertand: I DON'T CARE about the Royal Navy! If they cannot refuel, they are targets. Ruin their ports and the game is up.

Agreed. And nothing I'd even consider as a possibility. But the US not involved in Europe would have helped.

And the captured portion of the French Navy couldn't be used for transport... why?
Okay, see, the problem is, the fleets have more than enough supplies to deal with what transports the Germans had.

Even if the Germans could do what you're suggesting--which they couldn't--they still didn't have an adequate transportation fleet. Their transportation fleet was mostly a collection of river barges and dinky boats not suited to a placid lake, let alone the English channel.

Furthermore, even ignoring these failings, there weren't anywhere near enough transports. The numbers required to take the British Isles would have numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and there was no way the fleet was large enough to transport that.

Don't forget transporting supplies, and the simple fact that bombing the ports would be temporary damage at best that would eventually be repaired, thus allowing the Royal Navy to continue acting, which would stop the supplies, which would put an end to Sealion.

It. Wasn't. Possible.

Who cares about attacking the ships? Attack the ports with aircraft.
Aye and do shit-all. Ports are not easy to destroy and the Germans completely lacked heavy bombers.
Scapa Flow is within easy distance of the U-Boat fleet
Aye, it was also covered by mines and submarine nets, and U-boots couldn't surface to attacked it because they would have been killed to pieces in seconds. One plucky raid which permanently sank no vessels does not make it an easy target.
and aircraft via Norway or even Denmark.
Aye, bombers with no fighter cover. Awesome...
The rest of the UK? No problem at all.
The Battle of Britain says otherwise.

Eh the Germans didn't have any heavy bombers, and their fighters didn't have the range to protect them over most of the UK. They absolutely could not lay waste to our ports, which, as you may know, are made of concrete instead of, say, wood and bricks.

Because he really didn't like Nazism and was a paranoid nutcase?

70% of German troops and tanks fought on the Eastern front even when the British and Americans were on the West wall and in Italy. If he'd have had the element of surprise on his side, I have no doubt that Stalin could win. Even without he could have, it would just have taken Bloody Ages.

Don't need heavy bombers, justs need to cause fire damage. Ports may not be made of too much wood, but they have a LOT of flammable materiel: diesel, munitions, et al.

True about the fighters, but since they wasted the bombers anyway, it's a moot point.

Stalin was certainly a paranoid nutcase, but he was also looking at the probabilty of the Japanese attacking him in the back 12 time zones away with only one way to get a lot of troops and gear out there.
He also had a non-agression pact with Germany, and they had just carved up the damned Poles, whom had embarrased the Russians only 18 years earlier. It was VERY unlikely Stalin would have attacked.

Very true. And that 70% was there because Germany attacked the USSR. Had they left 20% to defend the frontier and put everything into an assault on Britain in 1941 when the RAF is hanging on by its teeth and the US is still using trucks with "TANK" painted on them for training? Yeah... not a pretty thought.

Aye and do shit-all. Ports are not easy to destroy and the Germans completely lacked heavy bombers.

Aye, it was also covered by mines and submarine nets, and U-boots couldn't surface to attacked it because they would have been killed to pieces in seconds. One plucky raid which permanently sank no vessels does not make it an easy target.

Aye, bombers with no fighter cover. Awesome...

The Battle of Britain says otherwise.


Had the Battle of Britain continued another month or so, the outcome would have been reversed. Say, had the Luftwaffe not had to put all those plans on the Eastern Frontier.

Don't need heavy bombers
Yes, you do.
justs need to cause fire damage. Ports may not be made of too much wood, but they have a LOT of flammable materiel: diesel, munitions, et al.
Uhu... all under steel and concrete - good times indeed.
True about the fighters, but since they wasted the bombers anyway, it's a moot point.
No, it's not a moot point. You cannot imagine that bomber attacks on ports are going to be successful without vast amounts of fighter cover, something the Germans could not do.
Stalin was certainly a paranoid nutcase, but he was also looking at the probabilty of the Japanese attacking him in the back 12 time zones away with only one way to get a lot of troops and gear out there.
Luckily someone put a railway there, simplifying that whole issue massively.
He also had a non-agression pact with Germany, and they had just carved up the damned Poles, whom had embarrased the Russians only 18 years earlier. It was VERY unlikely Stalin would have attacked.
Don't really see why. Germans massively bogged down in Blighty fighting the Home Guard and everyone else who feels like being a Plucky Brit, happy days for him as a couple of hundred thousand Germans are stuck here and not in Eastern Europe.
Very true. And that 70% was there because Germany attacked the USSR. Had they left 20% to defend the frontier and put everything into an assault on Britain in 1941 when the RAF is hanging on by its teeth and the US is still using trucks with "TANK" painted on them for training? Yeah... not a pretty thought.
Yeah, good luck with organising transport for even 5% of them at once.

Okay, see, the problem is, the fleets have more than enough supplies to deal with what transports the Germans had.

Even if the Germans could do what you're suggesting--which they couldn't--they still didn't have an adequate transportation fleet. Their transportation fleet was mostly a collection of river barges and dinky boats not suited to a placid lake, let alone the English channel.

Furthermore, even ignoring these failings, there weren't anywhere near enough transports. The numbers required to take the British Isles would have numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and there was no way the fleet was large enough to transport that.

Don't forget transporting supplies, and the simple fact that bombing the ports would be temporary damage at best that would eventually be repaired, thus allowing the Royal Navy to continue acting, which would stop the supplies, which would put an end to Sealion.

It. Wasn't. Possible.

FRENCH FLEET. Toulon was at the end of 1942.

What? You mean that ALL the allies on D-Day didn't land on the first day? <SHOCK> C'mon, that's an absurd point for you to make.

It. Was. Possible.

....and I'm going to bed.

Had the Battle of Britain continued another month or so, the outcome would have been reversed. Say, had the Luftwaffe not had to put all those plans on the Eastern Frontier.
How do you know this at all -_-

British fighter production was higher than German fighter production in this time and Goering's attacks on the cities were a waste of time of the highest order.

FRENCH FLEET.
Could not get past the Bay of Biscay, ergo could not attack any of the eastern side of the UK without getting an absolute pounding from the RN and RAF.

Dude, just check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II

Even ignoring all the other faults with Sealion, these would have put an end to any attempt to invade the British Isles. The only place harder to invade would have been the United States.

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?

By far use of air power and mobilized forces in a rapid advance was something peiced together during the Spanish Civil war. Honestly though it doesn't take a lot of thought to coordinate the weapons you have to a concerted attack. The big picture of course is much harder to track.

An occupation also eats up fighting men, and the ability for strike force capacity, without abandoning ground. Attacking military targets is not complex, but occupations or guerilla combat is a matter of force multiplication, supply and communication. The more supply lines you have the more of an economic drain is created, of course some benefit can be created by trade - that is supply in one direction, trade back the other. Or if possible actually supplying your troops off of the land they occupy. This often isn't possible for a long duration though, without effects such as seen in the Netherlands, and that is rationing and eventual starvation of the local population, in a downward spiral.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The US was supplying both China and UK with supplies, aircraft, and other wartime support. Effectively the US was at war with Japan, indirectly through China and the UK.
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_83.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm



The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.


This is a touchy issue. Here is my take, it is easy to write history after the people being written about are dead and cannot defend themselves. Whether the Nuremberg trials or Hitler's death/disapearance. In a fog of war it is impossible to know what really happened. The concentration camps actually employed jews to help the war effort. It was not only forced slave labour but also intellectual support. He was using them economically, by the reports. I am not a hallocaust denier, but I am not someone who takes either side in history - as I just don't know what happened, much like I don't know what happens out of my daily life, it is all plausabilities but no absolutes.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell.

Britain and the commonwealth was quite powerful, so attacking France was likely the final error, but they would have attacked Germany anyway, potentially, because of Poland. Really it was Poland. Germany would have been much better off to sit on itself until a stronger pact with Russia was possible. If Russia was brought into the fold with Japan, and Italy, the war might have turned out much different. Russia very well after Finland could have pushed into the rest of Scandanavia.. hence a crux. Too much too fast.
He should have consolidated more. He had a powerful war machine. Of course the fact his secret codes were compramised didn't help. Also attacking the church could be seen as problematic also.

the one catch is, that in germany's version of how WWII unfolded, Poland artilary bombarded Germany First.

Hitler could definitely blame the Italians.


Otherwise, it was attacking the USSR.

here may be a possible answer to why germany attacked poland.

The government in Warsaw understood. Beginning in April, the terror and persecution of ethnic Germans climbed beyond the previous normal and tolerable level. On 13 April, severe anti-German persecutions occurred on the Danzig border. The terrorist attacks on Germans rose throughout Poland after Germany began its efforts to improve relations. German consulates reported countless persecutions every day to Berlin. On 8 May, 300 ethnic Germans were expelled from Neutomischel County. The German theater was closed in Bromberg on 9 May. Two Germans were killed by Poles in Lodsch on 15 May. A Danzig citizen was killed by Poles in Kalthof on 21 May.

One can understand this only after learning that on 15 May the Polish War Minister Kasprzycki was in Paris for secret talks, and that the German representative in Warsaw reported to Berlin on 8 May that maps were being distributed in Polish cities that showed the border moved into German territory past Beuthen, Oppeln, Gleiwitz, Breslau, Stettin and Kolberg.

The situation in Danzig intensified under Polish pressure. On 15 June, the German ambassador lodged an official protest against insults and slanders against the Führer. Border incidents and other problems increased through June and July. On 4 August, the Polish government made an insolent and provocative ultimatum against rumors of alleged resistance against Polish customs officials. Danzig rejected the ultimatum on 7 August. The German government expressed its concern to the Polish representative on 9 August. Poland apparently felt itself under England's protection, and gave an unsatisfactory reply on 10 August. On 18 August, the SS Home Defense was mobilized to protect the German city of Danzig. Things were in motion.

English plutocracy attempted to wash its hands of the situation and claim innocence, seeking to build a moral alibi for the war it wanted. But even a blind man could see what England was doing.

On 24 August, the customs negotiations between Danzig and Poland ended because of Polish intransigence. Poland called up further reserves and intensified its provocations. On 25 August Poland further intensified the situation by firing on a German plane with a Reich Secretary on board on international airspace.

The reaction of the London warmongering clique to the events they had encouraged was clear; on 25 August they demonstratively signed a British-Polish alliance. The day after, a million and a half Poles were under arms.

The Führer spoke to the German Reichstag on 27 August. He announced that he wanted to solve three problems: Danzig, the Corridor, and improving Germany's relations with Poland in a way that would guarantee peaceful cooperation.

Lively diplomatic efforts between Berlin, Rome, London and Paris occurred between 28 and 31 August. The Führer yet again attempted a peaceful solution by announcing that the German government was expecting a Polish emissary. Poland replied by provocatively announcing general mobilization on 30 August. Polish radio on 31 August declared German proposals to solve the existing problems unacceptable. German consulates reported 55 instances between 25 and 31 August of the most serious Polish attacks on ethnic Germans. Polish troops committed a series of serious border violations on 31 August.

here may be a possible answer to why germany attacked poland.
"It had resources he needed and he knew he would win"

maybe If Hitler had tried to start democracy in the countries he occupied he would have succeeded.

The German Invasion Of Britain could have suceeded for sure if it had been launched in say, July 1940.

At this stage, Britain was at it's weakest. So what that they got heaps of infantry at Dunkirk? At this time, there were hardly any tanks of decent quaility left in the British Isles, and those few that still existed would be ripped up by German 88 mm guns.

Next, the Luftwaffe would have been capable of dealing with the Royal Navy, as long as it got help from the Kriegsmarine. As the case of the Illustrious showed us, ships have no hope against quality aircraft flown by quality pilots.

The kriegsmarine would need to help out by heavily mining the English Channel with U-Boats, and having U-Boats raning all over the North Sea.

Air superiority wouldn't be vital. All they would need is enough to ensure the RAf couldn't intervene, something easily done. After that, British airfield could easily be captured, proviing a veritable treasure trove of information as to how the Radar and Sector Stations worked.

Lastly, there is the Fallschirmjaeger. Both the 1st Division and the 22nd Air Landing Division could be used, and these elite troops would have little trouble with the Rag-Tag British Defenders.

The German Invasion Of Britain could have suceeded for sure if it had been launched in say, July 1940.

At this stage, Britain was at it's weakest. So what that they got heaps of infantry at Dunkirk? At this time, there were hardly any tanks of decent quaility left in the British Isles, and those few that still existed would be ripped up by German 88 mm guns.

Next, the Luftwaffe would have been capable of dealing with the Royal Navy, as long as it got help from the Kriegsmarine. As the case of the Illustrious showed us, ships have no hope against quality aircraft flown by quality pilots.

The kriegsmarine would need to help out by heavily mining the English Channel with U-Boats, and having U-Boats raning all over the North Sea.

Air superiority wouldn't be vital. All they would need is enough to ensure the RAf couldn't intervene, something easily done. After that, British airfield could easily be captured, proviing a veritable treasure trove of information as to how the Radar and Sector Stations worked.

Lastly, there is the Fallschirmjaeger. Both the 1st Division and the 22nd Air Landing Division could be used, and these elite troops would have little trouble with the Rag-Tag British Defenders.
You are wrong and stupid ;)

To greed and fanatic:

No offense, but that's getting rather silly. That's like going " Could Germany Have Got Nuclear Weapons Faster If Hitler Hadn't Been Anti-Semetic And Gotten Rid Of Them?" A question or a statement like that is so far out of character it isn't worth postulating.

Yootopia

What exactly is wrong with this plan?

Hitler was a gifted amateur who thought he knew more than he did and refused to listen to his military experts when they told him he was wrong.

Sad there's no WYTYG here. Epic phail.

Isn't that what achieve's some of Germany's greatest victories?

Isn't that what achieve's some of Germany's greatest victories?


lol Stalingrad.

Remember what happens when you underestimate your enemy? Their flag will end up flying over your capital.
I'm the master of low expectations.
+
They misunderestimated me.
:mad:

You don't seem to understand:

THE RESOURCES DID NOT EXIST.

In order for what you suggest to be possible, Germany would need many more resources they simply didn't have. Period.

German military planning, especially Plan Z for the expansion of the Kriegsmarine, were looking at a war in 1945 rather than 1939. Given how much the Germans were able to achieve even without the war economy or militarization envisioned as possible by 1945, I highly doubt Britain or the USSR could have had a chance against a Germany with its capabilities fully developed.

Recall that in 1944, at the height of the strategic bombing campaign, the Germans were producing more and heavier armaments than they had in any previous year.

That's true for Hitler in the second half of the war, up until about the middle of 1940 he made plenty of brilliant decisionsd. He managed to ostracise ans isolatestate after state in Europe, made the Soviet Union a willing ally, destroyed all the power of France, kicked Britain off the continent ang had only weak opposition to creating an empire dominating all of Eorope, THe Middle East and North Africa.

To me, Hitler's first big mistage is on May 21, 1940. On this date, at a conference at the OKW headquarters, Hitler expressed disinterest in invading England, while positive action on his part may have lead to a July invasion.

Nazism is bad and so is genocide,But I am Amazed at how hitler could be so stupid to start a 2 front war.

Hitler was a world war 1 veteran himself and we all know a 2 front war was why germany lost world war 1.
He should have known better.
He must have had some kind of mental problem that effected his thinking.

With strategic bombing.

That's true, but so was every country! Germany had a rate of acceleration much less that every other big country, as mobilisation and preperation for war production took the whole war to occur.

It wasn't really a two front war at the time.

Britain was so weak that it would not have any real potential offensive strengh until at least 1943, and only then thanks to the United States.

What do you think would have happened if, when the British retreated across the channel in May and June of 1940, the German U-boats had attacked and sunk the flotilla and the Germans had followed up with an immediate invasion of Britain? It strikes me that Hitler lost an opportunity there.

No. No they couldn't have. The Kriegsmarine was not capable of standing up to the Royal Navy, and they had no real transportation fleet to speak of.

If the Luftwaffe had finished their campaign of striking British airpower though, the Royal Navy wouldn't have had any decent air support in the event operation Sealion was put into effect. That would have freed up the Luftwaffe to launch huge sorties out of France to conduct airstrikes against the Royal Navy.

I'm not sure how effective it would have been had they built a couple dozen more submarines and had them patrolling the Channel while the invasion was taking place though.

As for the lack of real transportation fleet, it's not that easy to dismiss it out of hand? The Germans had used paratroopers to great effect in the Blitz to secure or disable fortifications in the earlier pushes. It's not too hard to imagine them pulling a much bigger airdrop to seize a port so commandeered ferries and the like can bring over the bulk of the Wermacht.

EDIT: Also, they wouldn't have needed heavy bombers? With the RAF effectively killed, there wouldn't have been any Lancaster bombers, or Tallboy bombs, and they could have finished work on the V3 complex and bombarded Britain all the way from France with near impunity.

Sad there's no WYTYG here. Epic phail.
I didn't think WYTYG knew much about military strategy though. :confused:

German military planning, especially Plan Z for the expansion of the Kriegsmarine, were looking at a war in 1945 rather than 1939. Given how much the Germans were able to achieve even without the war economy or militarization envisioned as possible by 1945, I highly doubt Britain or the USSR could have had a chance against a Germany with its capabilities fully developed.

Recall that in 1944, at the height of the strategic bombing campaign, the Germans were producing more and heavier armaments than they had in any previous year.

It's debatable, certainly...though to be honest, I don't see how a war could have been delayed for that long, unless Hitler somehow managed to persuade the French and the British to ignore whatever Germany was doing for six more years, a rather unlikely event at best.

What do you think would have happened if, when the British retreated across the channel in May and June of 1940, the German U-boats had attacked and sunk the flotilla and the Germans had followed up with an immediate invasion of Britain? It strikes me that Hitler lost an opportunity there.
The build-up required too much time and effort and would have to have already been partially accomplished. The Germans were fast, but they weren't that fast.
If the Luftwaffe had finished their campaign of striking British airpower though, the Royal Navy wouldn't have had any decent air support in the event operation Sealion was put into effect. That would have freed up the Luftwaffe to launch huge sorties out of France to conduct airstrikes against the Royal Navy.
But the Luftwaffe didn't exactly have much in the way of naval bombers. It was on the whole very much a land-based air force, and while extremely good at that, it was not so good at naval bombardment.

I don't see it being able to accomplish enough.

I'm not sure how effective it would have been had they built a couple dozen more submarines and had them patrolling the Channel while the invasion was taking place though.
Couldn't really be done. The English Channel is too shallow to allow for that much in the way of submarine warfare. There's a reason the Kriegsmarine generally stayed out of the Channel.

Besides, a couple dozen submarines wouldn't have been much against the sheer size and power of the Royal Navy, even if the Navy lacked air support.

As for the lack of real transportation fleet, it's not that easy to dismiss it out of hand? The Germans had used paratroopers to great effect in the Blitz to secure or disable fortifications in the earlier pushes. It's not too hard to imagine them pulling a much bigger airdrop to seize a port so commandeered ferries and the like can bring over the bulk of the Wermacht.

Actually, it is, because you're forgetting just how many British there are. The amount of paratroopers required to capture a port in the way you're suggesting would easily be whole divisions worth, which simply weren't even remotely feasible. Paratrooping action like that wouldn't be feasible for another couple of decades.

EDIT: Also, they wouldn't have needed heavy bombers? With the RAF effectively killed, there wouldn't have been any Lancaster bombers, or Tallboy bombs, and they could have finished work on the V3 complex and bombarded Britain all the way from France with near impunity.

Again, they lacked the resources to really wage an air campaign that strong. You're forgetting just how big the British Isles are. It's not exactly easy to deploy an airforce to suppress all air activity across the Isles from the Continent.

The Germans went wrong by not knocking out Britain before attempting any efforts in the East. There are many arguments as to why a German invasion of Britain would not succeed, but I feel that the Battle of Britain was lost by the Germans due to a large number of mistakes over the course of the battle.

1. Early in the battle, efforts were made by the Germans to knock out British radar stations. Had these raids targeted the power stations and power lines supporting the radar stations, as opposed to the radar towers themselves, the effectiveness of these attacks would have been significantly increased. Eventually, attacks on radar stations were halted...a critical error.

2. Early efforts unwisely split the focus of the Luftwaffe's efforts. Believeing British fighter defense to be concentrated in the south, where any invasion was to occur, they sent fighters and bombers from Scandanavia to northern targets. These raids met unexpectedly heavy resistance, and had only minimal successes. Had these assets been focused in the south, British air defenses might have been more hard pressed to maintain their presence in southern bases.

3. The switch from attacks on airfields and aircraft production facilities to cities in early September assured that there would be no invasion of England until Spring of 1941. Instead of pressing what advantages they had, the Luftwaffe allowed the RAF to replenish itself.

Had these mistakes not been made, it is entirely possible that a landing could have been attempted. Whether the landings would have succeeded on the ground, or whether the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine could have stalled the Royal Navy are seperate questions, but there is a strong argument that Germany could have estabilshed the air-superioriy required to press the issue and force both sea and land engagements that might well have gone in their favor.

Their best chance would have been to ring the Isles with U-boats while drawing the Royal Navy into an engagement with the surface fleet and the Luftwaffe. With less protection for convoys, supplies would be running low just as the landings were making headway. Would the British ground forces be able to hold while the sea engagements were resolved? Would the Germans be able to hold of the Royal Navy long enough to get armor across the channel? Difficult to say...but a much greater chance for victory than being stuck in Russian mud.

It goes back to what I was saying about the Caucus (southern) attack versus a "March on Moscow" (northern) attack. Attacking through the steppes only hurt Hitler and his tank-heavy (literally) units, while fighting in the mountains of the Caucus region may have worked to his highly-experienced troop's advantage.

The Russian winter is what sealed Hitler's fate, and had he attacked via the south, he could have cut off Russian oil and ended the war before the winter set in. Alternatively...he could have given his troops gloves. Seriously.

I think the prospect of moving serious armored forces through the Middle East up through the Causacus would have stretched German lines of communication well beyond the breaking point. Things were stretched pretty thin at El-Alamein, and that was only in Egypt. You've got another four thousand kilometers+ of harsh terrain and bad roads before you even make it to the Causacus.

Add to that the logistical difficulty of moving armour through those mountains, after having given Stalin ample time to prepare against attack, or to potentially stage a catastrophic offensive through Poland into the heart of the Reich

It basically comes down to the fact that they just couldn't do everything they wanted to do. If they could build this or if they could have a few more of these...then yes, the Germans could have done it. It wasn't that they were incapable of launching and succeeding at that sort of campaign from the standpoint of generalship. The Germans under the Nazis were probably some of the best tacticians ever seen.

But tactics can't make up for logistics, and if you don't have the resources to do everything you need to do, you will fail, no matter what you do to try to counter it.

Again, they lacked the resources to really wage an air campaign that strong. You're forgetting just how big the British Isles are. It's not exactly easy to deploy an airforce to suppress all air activity across the Isles from the Continent.

The way I understand it, the RAF was 24 hours away from total collapse when Hitler went nuts after a successful bomber raid by them and ordered strikes against London, giving Britain time to rebuild.

If he had kept the Luftwaffe constantly eating away at the RAF, they would have ended up with zero experienced pilots and few functional aircraft, after that, they could have switched to raids on vital resources like fuel depots, further weakening their ability to field air defense operations, much less offensives.

But the Luftwaffe didn't exactly have much in the way of naval bombers. It was on the whole very much a land-based air force, and while extremely good at that, it was not so good at naval bombardment.

I don't see it being able to accomplish enough.

Stukas would be enough for the job. This was proved with things like the Illustrious

Couldn't really be done. The English Channel is too shallow to allow for that much in the way of submarine warfare. There's a reason the Kriegsmarine generally stayed out of the Channel.

Besides, a couple dozen submarines wouldn't have been much against the sheer size and power of the Royal Navy, even if the Navy lacked air support.

They could lay mines though.....
Even if a couple of ships were lost to mines, the Royal Navy wouldn't be inclined to come in any more.


Actually, it is, because you're forgetting just how many British there are. The amount of paratroopers required to capture a port in the way you're suggesting would easily be whole divisions worth, which simply weren't even remotely feasible. Paratrooping action like that wouldn't be feasible for another couple of decades.

This is putting elite, well trained veteraans up against some broken men from Dunkirk and over enthusiastic schoolboys with sticks.

Yootopia

What exactly is wrong with this plan?
We escaped at Dunkirk (not entirely sure how 88s would tear several divisions' worth of infantry, but there we go), our air force outclassed the Luftwaffe by virtue of radar and having more time on target, the RN was just vastly superior to the Kriegsmarine and we already had a massive series of defensive works to repel a German invasion, as well as having better supplies of things such as oil. Other than that, your invasion plans are 100% flawless.

But the Luftwaffe didn't exactly have much in the way of naval bombers. It was on the whole very much a land-based air force, and while extremely good at that, it was not so good at naval bombardment.


Depends on when they manage to field the Fritz X. Stuka's can serve as anti-naval bombers in a pinch, although that would probably be for thin hulled destroyers and the like. Not so good against battleships.

Still, a harassment campaign like that would keep the Royal Navy rather busy, and we've seen what happens to naval fleets when they lack decent air cover while the enemy has a fair number of dive bombers and torpedo bombers.


Besides, a couple dozen submarines wouldn't have been much against the sheer size and power of the Royal Navy, even if the Navy lacked air support.


Probably not I suppose. But I still wouldn't discount the airpower Nazi Germany would have been able to bring to bear if the RAF had been killed early on.


Actually, it is, because you're forgetting just how many British there are. The amount of paratroopers required to capture a port in the way you're suggesting would easily be whole divisions worth, which simply weren't even remotely feasible. Paratrooping action like that wouldn't be feasible for another couple of decades.

Operation Overlord seemed to suggest otherwise, but to be fair, the British did have the kind of air lift necessary. If Germany had committed itself to an invasion of Britain though, it's not impossible that they would have dumped resources into an attempt to build the kind of airpower necessary.

Although it's a big toss up if Hitler would have gone the whole hog and demanded VX gas attacks on the ports to clear up resistance before the paratroops arrived. Probably not, given how he resisted from using it as a wartime tool despite losing massively, but it's one of the options.

The way I understand it, the RAF was 24 hours away from total collapse when Hitler went nuts after a successful bomber raid by them and ordered strikes against London, giving Britain time to rebuild.

If he had kept the Luftwaffe constantly eating away at the RAF, they would have ended up with zero experienced pilots and few functional aircraft, after that, they could have switched to raids on vital resources like fuel depots, further weakening their ability to field air defense operations, much less offensives.

I agree. It wasn't attacking airfield necessarily which would be destroying the RAF, it was that these raids forced the British to intercept, killing more and more pilots.

We escaped at Dunkirk (not entirely sure how 88s would tear several divisions' worth of infantry, but there we go), our air force outclassed the Luftwaffe by virtue of radar and having more time on target, the RN was just vastly superior to the Kriegsmarine and we already had a massive series of defensive works to repel a German invasion, as well as having better supplies of things such as oil. Other than that, your invasion plans are 100% flawless.

Yeah, you guys escaped..... but your equipment didn't, did it? all you would have are troops who would be pretty much useless.

Air force? Not really........ the Luftwaffe outnumbered you guys like, 4 to 1. Besiedes, my plan doesn't call for destroying the Raf, merely incapacititing it enough to preventing intercepting the invasion. Then we can capture all your airfileds, preventing you from reaching the channel for long.

What forts? On the coast, or inland?

In each cases, forts are only as good as their weakest point. Men like Rommel could easily outflank 'em.

I perfectly understand Japan. It was their one and best chance to ever defeat the US and they came pretty close, on some accounts. It failed, but it was by no means stupid.

I don't think Russia would have stayed out of the war against Germany, even if Germany hadn't attacked them. It was still a mistake for Germany to attack them, as this used up resources.

Stukas would be enough for the job. This was proved with things like the Illustrious
No, it wasn't. The Lusty was back in service in under a year, even after it got bombed a second time, and stayed in service until 1954.
Couldn't really be done. The English Channel is too shallow to allow for that much in the way of submarine warfare. There's a reason the Kriegsmarine generally stayed out of the Channel.

Besides, a couple dozen submarines wouldn't have been much against the sheer size and power of the Royal Navy, even if the Navy lacked air support.

They could lay mines though.....
Even if a couple of ships were lost to mines, the Royal Navy wouldn't be inclined to come in any more.
Eh we mined it to fuck and stuck submarine nets all over it, too, as well as basically the whole Bay of Biscay, which was an absolute no-go area for both surface and submarine elements of the Kriegsmarine.
Actually, it is, because you're forgetting just how many British there are. The amount of paratroopers required to capture a port in the way you're suggesting would easily be whole divisions worth, which simply weren't even remotely feasible. Paratrooping action like that wouldn't be feasible for another couple of decades.
Even then, sheer waste of time and lives.
This is putting elite, well trained veteraans up against some broken men from Dunkirk and over enthusiastic schoolboys with sticks.
No, it isn't. This is putting well trained veterans up against other well-trained veterans who actually have something to defend instead of just watching their so-called allies lose and run, backed up by the actually pretty well-armed Home Guard which had a huge network of pillboxes as well as the support of the RAF and RN.

Yeah, you guys escaped..... but your equipment didn't, did it? all you would have are troops who would be pretty much useless.
*sighs*

We lost a bunch of tanks and some ground equipment for the RAF. Small arms and light equipment was mostly taken back intact.
Air force? Not really........ the Luftwaffe outnumbered you guys like, 4 to 1.
Yeah and we still won. Good fucking times.
Besiedes, my plan doesn't call for destroying the Raf, merely incapacititing it enough to preventing intercepting the invasion. Then we can capture all your airfileds, preventing you from reaching the channel for long.
How on earth would it be easier for Germany to get its forces to and then across the channel than a proper island nation?
What forts? On the coast, or inland?
Les deux.
In each cases, forts are only as good as their weakest point. Men like Rommel could easily outflank 'em.
Aye good luck getting German tanks across the channel en masse with everything they need for any kind of long-term campaign.

I agree. It wasn't attacking airfield necessarily which would be destroying the RAF, it was that these raids forced the British to intercept, killing more and more pilots.
RAF Fighter Command lost about 550 men. The Luftwaffe lost about 2,500. Doesn't sound to me like they were doing all that well out of it in terms of crew casualties, to be honest.

RAF Fighter Command lost about 550 men. The Luftwaffe lost about 2,500. Doesn't sound to me like they were doing all that well out of it in terms of crew casualties, to be honest.

True enough, but a fair portion of those German casualties were not pilots, but bomber crews, who were far more easily replacable than highly trained pilots.

True enough, but a fair portion of those German casualties were not pilots, but bomber crews, who were far more easily replacable than highly trained pilots.
They still got absolutely plasterd.

They still got absolutely plasterd.

It's generally expected that an attacker will lose more troops than the defender, which applies to airspace defense as well, since I'm certain a number of those losses were attributed to ground fire.

equal amounts of aircraft lost.

It's generally expected that an attacker will lose more troops than the defender, which applies to airspace defense as well, since I'm certain a number of those losses were attributed to ground fire.
The vast majority of it was down to fighter pilots, the ground based defences were a profound waste of time outside of their role in raising morale in the cities.

equal amounts of aircraft lost.
Aye, at a time when we were outproducing them. 5 times the air crew lost. When we were getting more and more recruits in from outside, for example the Polish squadron, as well as various empire air force pilots.

Depends on when they manage to field the Fritz X. Stuka's can serve as anti-naval bombers in a pinch, although that would probably be for thin hulled destroyers and the like. Not so good against battleships.

Still, a harassment campaign like that would keep the Royal Navy rather busy, and we've seen what happens to naval fleets when they lack decent air cover while the enemy has a fair number of dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

Oh, I have no doubt the Germans could inflict some serious casualties. I just question the idea that it would have been enough.


Probably not I suppose. But I still wouldn't discount the airpower Nazi Germany would have been able to bring to bear if the RAF had been killed early on.

I'm not discounting it. I'm just saying that it probably wouldn't be enough.


Operation Overlord seemed to suggest otherwise, but to be fair, the British did have the kind of air lift necessary. If Germany had committed itself to an invasion of Britain though, it's not impossible that they would have dumped resources into an attempt to build the kind of airpower necessary.

Although it's a big toss up if Hitler would have gone the whole hog and demanded VX gas attacks on the ports to clear up resistance before the paratroops arrived. Probably not, given how he resisted from using it as a wartime tool despite losing massively, but it's one of the options.

Maybe, but that would have required them to spend less time working on other things. The Germans could only do so many things at once, and if they were expanding air power, they couldn't spent many resources building more ships, and so on and so forth.

This reality is faced even by Hearts of Iron players, and in that game you can usually do some pretty crazy ahistorical things.

I think what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had managed to gain air superiority, inflicted causualties on the Royal Navy, and so on, would be that the Germans would gain a beachhead. Maybe even take a town or two near the coast.

But the massive defense works would have stopped the Germans cold before too much more.

In no way do I ever see them successfully conquering the British Isles.

And even if they had, what then? The United States might've been all for staying isolationist, but I think we'd have had a thing or two to say even if we were staying out until then. And, of course, the logistics of holding the British Isles would be an extreme nightmare, nevermind the fact the Germans have the Soviets breathing down their necks...Stalin being the paranoid bastard he was, he'd probably have kicked Hitler's door down as soon as he saw the Germans so occupied.

The end result would've probably been a Soviet controlled Europe and a barely freed United Kingdom by the United States.

No, it wasn't. The Lusty was back in service in under a year, even after it got bombed a second time, and stayed in service until 1954.

Eh we mined it to fuck and stuck submarine nets all over it, too, as well as basically the whole Bay of Biscay, which was an absolute no-go area for both surface and submarine elements of the Kriegsmarine.

Even then, sheer waste of time and lives.

No, it isn't. This is putting well trained veterans up against other well-trained veterans who actually have something to defend instead of just watching their so-called allies lose and run, backed up by the actually pretty well-armed Home Guard which had a huge network of pillboxes as well as the support of the RAF and RN.

Year and a half, actually.

Second point. Proof that it would work then.

Third point. Umm, what and they wouldn't have much better support. What veteran units, by the way?

the home guard? They've only been around for two months? When are all these forts built?

Aye, at a time when we were outproducing them. 5 times the air crew lost. When we were getting more and more recruits in from outside, for example the Polish squadron, as well as various empire air force pilots.

French forces too?

Aye, at a time when we were outproducing them. 5 times the air crew lost. When we were getting more and more recruits in from outside, for example the Polish squadron, as well as various empire air force pilots.

What about bomber and coastal command losses?

They could've invaded the Middle East and captured their oil resources.

They could've invaded the Middle East and captured their oil resources.

From where? Through the Med? The Mediterranean was a British lake during the war, for all practical purposes.

Also they made the mistake of not focusing on Moscow when they invaded Russia.

The Führer spoke to the German Reichstag on 27 August. He announced that he wanted to solve three problems: Danzig, the Corridor, and improving Germany's relations with Poland in a way that would guarantee peaceful cooperation.

Lively diplomatic efforts between Berlin, Rome, London and Paris occurred between 28 and 31 August. The Führer yet again attempted a peaceful solution by announcing that the German government was expecting a Polish emissary. Poland replied by provocatively announcing general mobilization on 30 August. Polish radio on 31 August declared German proposals to solve the existing problems unacceptable. German consulates reported 55 instances between 25 and 31 August of the most serious Polish attacks on ethnic Germans. Polish troops committed a series of serious border violations on 31 August.Hitler seeking a peaceful solution with Poland my ass.

Year and a half, actually.
Same odds, came back to kick arse later in the war, so I'm not all that fussed.
Second point. Proof that it would work then.
Yeah, assuming you have all of these German ships running into an outstandingly heavy minefield, then dimining it, then remining it - pretty much unfeasible, also a collosal waste of time since British shipping didn't bother going through the Bay of Biscay either.
Third point. Umm, what and they wouldn't have much better support.
Factory fresh tanks and vehicles for the British, both domestic and lend-lease. Sounds like good times to me.
What veteran units, by the way?
The BEF, esp the Motor Divisions which were pretty much intact in manpower if not materiél.
the home guard? They've only been around for two months?
Uhu. Still trained.
When are all these forts built?
Starting in 1937, along with the air defences.
French forces too?
Some, aye.
What about bomber and coastal command losses?
Pretty much negligible at rates of replenishment, esp. since they were, on the whole, getting better gear.

From where? Through the Med? The Mediterranean was a British lake during the war, for all practical purposes.

Obviously it would be a lot easier if they first invaded Spain and captured Gibraltar. All they would need to do then is capture the Sues Canal and the allies would not be able to send any ships to the Mediterranean.

They could've invaded the Middle East and captured their oil resources.
No, they couldn't. North Africa campaign and all, another very solid British + Allies win.
Also they made the mistake of not focusing on Moscow when they invaded Russia.
To what ends? Napoleon won Moscow and it was utterly phyrric.

Obviously it would be a lot easier if they first invaded Spain
Not bloody likely, the Spanish were officially neutral, really their allies, but having German troops running supply columns through a nation which was still basically filled with people who had fought fascism only a couple of years previous to the war was off the cards.
and captured Gibraltar.
Aye good luck with that, it was extremely well-defended.
All they would need to do then is capture the Sues Canal and the allies would not be able to send any ships to the Mediterranean.
"All they would need to do" - makes it sounds far, far easier than such an undertaking would actually be. For starters, the Italian navy was out of the picture after Trentino and the Kriegsmarine was pretty weak, then we have the pretty large pre-existing Free French and British forces in The Whole Of Africa And The Levant And The Middle East blocking your path, and then we have British troops in India which could get to the Suez Canal pretty sharpish.

Obviously it would be a lot easier if they first invaded Spain and captured Gibraltar. All they would need to do then is capture the Sues Canal and the allies would not be able to send any ships to the Mediterranean.

Yeah, and it'd have been a lot easier if a Sky Fairy granted Hitler a city full of replicators and the antimatter reactors and fuel to power them.

That wasn't about to happen, and neither was an invasion of Spain. Do you realize the kind of terrain they'd have to go through just to get into the Iberian peninsula? Nevermind the fact that the Spanish weren't about to put up with that, and that'd have brought them in on the side of the Allies, and then the Allies would have another way to fight Germany, and so and so forth...

No, they couldn't. North Africa campaign and all, another very solid British + Allies win.

To what ends? Napoleon won Moscow and it was utterly phyrric.

If they'd landed BEHIND the British army in North Africa they could've encirled them with the help of the Italians. Hitler committed too few tanks to North Africa. Rommel almost won with what he had and with just a few more tanks he could have won.

Moscow was the centre of communications and capturing it would've cut off all the communications the Soviets had with their armies.

Yeah, and it'd have been a lot easier if a Sky Fairy granted Hitler a city full of replicators and the antimatter reactors and fuel to power them.

That wasn't about to happen, and neither was an invasion of Spain. Do you realize the kind of terrain they'd have to go through just to get into the Iberian peninsula? Nevermind the fact that the Spanish weren't about to put up with that, and that'd have brought them in on the side of the Allies, and then the Allies would have another way to fight Germany, and so and so forth...

They were actually on the verge of doing just that.

Hitler had pretty much organised to take Gibraltar, but Canaris, head of the Abwehr and a traitor, told Franco to say no to Hitler, then tricked Hitler into not doing it.

If they'd landed BEHIND the British army in North Africa they could've encirled them with the help of the Italians. Hitler committed too few tanks to North Africa. Rommel almost won with what he had and with just a few more tanks he could have won.

Moscow was the centre of communications and capturing it would've cut off all the communications the Soviets had with their armies.

Napolean proved that that isn't true.

They were actually on the verge of doing just that.

Hitler had pretty much organised to take Gibraltar, but Canaris, head of the Abwehr and a traitor, told Franco to say no to Hitler, then tricked Hitler into not doing it.

It'd have been like anything else differently Germany would have done in terms of invasions: It'd have just caused the Soviets to start fighting first, because the Germans would be so completely occupied in the west, and it'd have led either a shorter war, or one with a result far less palatable. (Imagine East and West France, or worse, North and South Spain!)

If they'd landed BEHIND the British army in North Africa they could've encirled them with the help of the Italians.
What, in the Levant? Ha, no.
Hitler committed too few tanks to North Africa. Rommel almost won with what he had and with just a few more tanks he could have won.
Aye, shame about ULTRA stopping that happening, eh?
Moscow was the centre of communications and capturing it would've cut off all the communications the Soviets had with their armies.
No, Moscow was a centre of communications, and capturing it would have been an inconvenience to the Russians but not much more. Ah the power of wireless communications, eh?

Same odds, came back to kick arse later in the war, so I'm not all that fussed.

Yeah, assuming you have all of these German ships running into an outstandingly heavy minefield, then dimining it, then remining it - pretty much unfeasible, also a collosal waste of time since British shipping didn't bother going through the Bay of Biscay either.

Factory fresh tanks and vehicles for the British, both domestic and lend-lease. Sounds like good times to me.

The BEF, esp the Motor Divisions which were pretty much intact in manpower if not materiél.

Uhu. Still trained.

Starting in 1937, along with the air defences.

Some, aye.

Pretty much negligible at rates of replenishment, esp. since they were, on the whole, getting better gear.

The importnat thing is that it had to be done in July 1940. Thev best date would have been the night of July 13.

There would be no lend lease, no time for the British to recuperate, and no protracted air war - just a quick onslaught to stop the RAF from interfering with the invasion.

They were actually on the verge of doing just that.
No, they may of been on the verge of attacking Gibraltar, taking it is a very different matter. Quite how they would do it would be intriguing, it was like Singapore in the east but actually better defended.
Hitler had pretty much organised to take Gibraltar, but Canaris, head of the Abwehr and a traitor, told Franco to say no to Hitler, then tricked Hitler into not doing it.
Uhu... lots and lots of Republicans left in Spain at this time, and if you think they'd forget that Hitler was a baddie or something, you are fundamentally wrong.

You keep missing the point. The most the Germans could have accomplished was grabbing a beachhead. That's it; that's all. Nothing more.

And they'd have just wasted tons of resources doing it.

Hitler made the right decision not to go for a Sealion.

And as for trying to tackle Spain, take a look at these before you suggest it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibralter

They were actually on the verge of doing just that.

Hitler had pretty much organised to take Gibraltar, but Canaris, head of the Abwehr and a traitor, told Franco to say no to Hitler, then tricked Hitler into not doing it.Kind of difficult to call anyone that opposed Hitler a traitor.

Yeah, and it'd have been a lot easier if a Sky Fairy granted Hitler a city full of replicators and the antimatter reactors and fuel to power them.

That wasn't about to happen, and neither was an invasion of Spain. Do you realize the kind of terrain they'd have to go through just to get into the Iberian peninsula? Nevermind the fact that the Spanish weren't about to put up with that, and that'd have brought them in on the side of the Allies, and then the Allies would have another way to fight Germany, and so and so forth...

The map

http://www.geoinnovations.co.uk/Images/Relief/Large/Geo-Innovations_Spain.jpg

shows that not all of the border with Spain was mountainous. The Germans could've sent their tanks round the coast and encircled the Spanish troops in the mountains.

The importnat thing is that it had to be done in July 1940. Thev best date would have been the night of July 13.

There would be no lend lease, no time for the British to recuperate, and no protracted air war - just a quick onslaught to stop the RAF from interfering with the invasion.
Ah of course, because the RAF could have been utterly incapacitated in one day and would not simply have taken higher casualties for one night, and then recovered, right?

Because radar did not exist, we had not got ULTRA, the factories were on strike, all men 16-55 had died of the bubonic plague, German fighter pilots were aces, the Germans had cracked pinpoint navigation, had increased their bomb loads and Fighter Command was having the night off and was incapable of action on every level, operationally and tactically. Yes.

The map

http://www.geoinnovations.co.uk/Images/Relief/Large/Geo-Innovations_Spain.jpg

shows that not all of the border with Spain was mountainous. The Germans could've sent their tanks round the coast and encircled the Spanish troops in the mountains.
Aye, because the Fascist elements of Spanish society were all taking a holiday in Andorra along with their chums the Republicans, and they'd swapped their guns in for skis as part of a European peace plan. Genius.

No, they may of been on the verge of attacking Gibraltar, taking it is a very different matter. Quite how they would do it would be intriguing, it was like Singapore in the east but actually better defended.It'd be interesting indeed. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/4373)

Napolean proved that that isn't true.

They didn't rely telephone communications in Napoleon’s day.

The map

http://www.geoinnovations.co.uk/Images/Relief/Large/Geo-Innovations_Spain.jpg

shows that not all of the border with Spain was mountainous. The Germans could've sent their tanks round the coast and encircled the Spanish troops in the mountains.

You do realize that even those areas that aren't Rocky Mountain style mountainous are still mountains more along the lines of the Appalachians? We're not talking about flat plains here.

And you seem to think that the Spanish forces would be easily walked over, which is ridiculously naive. That only happened to the French because they were surprised and because so many of their forces were concentrated in one area and had to try to react, and simply couldn't do it in time.

It'd be interesting indeed. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/4373)
Can't fault the name of the Op.

They didn't rely telephone communications in Napoleon’s day.
What, the Russians would all become paraplaegics with no idea of how to transmit wireless communication without Moscow? Cripes.

You keep missing the point. The most the Germans could have accomplished was grabbing a beachhead. That's it; that's all. Nothing more.

And they'd have just wasted tons of resources doing it.

Hitler made the right decision not to go for a Sealion.

And then they continue out from the beachhead...........................

Germany didn't invade Britain because the British had complete surface control of the seas between Britain and Europe. German troops could not be transported across the channel.

Germany didn't bomb the British Ports because they lacked heavy bombers and didn't have sufficient control of the skies over Britain.

In their campaign against the airfields and aero industry the Germans tried but failed to destroy British airpower. The decision to bomb civilians was an admission of this failure.

The Germans tried what they could do set up Britain for invasion but simply didn't have the resources. No amount of wishful thinking can alter that fact.

They should have ignored Britain and gone for Russia from the start. The British couldn't have invaded Europe.

And then they continue out from the beachhead...........................

And run smack dab into the British defenses, and get overwhelmed and are forced to surrender.

You do realize that even those areas that aren't Rocky Mountain style mountainous are still mountains more along the lines of the Appalachians? We're not talking about flat plains here.

And you seem to think that the Spanish forces would be easily walked over, which is ridiculously naive. That only happened to the French because they were surprised and because so many of their forces were concentrated in one area and had to try to react, and simply couldn't do it in time.

Right.... because a bunch of peasants, most of whom believe in Facsim would perform better than the country with one of the biggest armies in europe.

Besides, hitler would be let in by franco. you know, how hitler won the war for him and all......

And then they continue out from the beachhead...........................
And get absolutely killed to pieces inland due to the very extensive network of defences which had been being built for the last few years, in addition to the not exactly Nazi-friendly population of the UK. Congrats, the Germans either waste years fighting a pointless, unwinnable battle and get killed by the Russians, or they don't bother and fight the Russians and lose / lose momentum and hence the necessary economic, military and popular support needed to wage a massive war.

And run smack dab into the British defenses, and get overwhelmed and are forced to surrender.

Yeah, because it's not like the second wolrd war didnt teach us that static defenses are useless or anything....

Germany didn't invade Britain because the British had complete surface control of the seas between Britain and Europe. German troops could not be transported across the channel.

Germany didn't bomb the British Ports because they lacked heavy bombers and didn't have sufficient control of the skies over Britain.

In their campaign against the airfields and aero industry the Germans tried but failed to destroy British airpower. The decision to bomb civilians was an admission of this failure.

The Germans tried what they could do set up Britain for invasion but simply didn't have the resources. No amount of wishful thinking can alter that fact.

They should have ignored Britain and gone for Russia from the start. The British couldn't have invaded Europe.

Aircraft are better than ships. Simple fact.

Right.... because a bunch of peasants, most of whom believe in Facsim would perform better than the country with one of the biggest armies in europe.
Oh so you're swapping Sealion for an attack on Spain which stretches the Germans massively as they fight what they see as peasants in a country full of anti-fascists with 3 years of fighting behind them, as well as the pretty well-funded, trained and experienced military of Spain. Good call.
Besides, hitler would be let in by franco. you know, how hitler won the war for him and all......
Yeah, fine, in which case you 'just' get tens of thousands of Republicans dogging them all the way to Gibraltar, at which point the Germans catch the ferry and invade, winning instantly because they are the rightful inheritors of the earth or something. I've been up for 22 hours and I'm still kicking your arse.

Yeah, because it's not like the second wolrd war didnt teach us that static defenses are useless or anything....

It didn't. It taught us that over reliance on static defenses would lead to failure if you didn't have back-up plans.

The failure of the Maginot line was in that it was bypassed. Had it been extended along the Belgian border, France would have been completely sealed and it would have been a lot harder for the Germans to take them down.

But you're also missing some simple facts. The Germans could throw their entire army at the French; they couldn't do that to the British. They had no trouble keeping supply lines open; they couldn't do that on the British Isles. They could keep reinforcements going strong and easy; they couldn't do that on the British Isles.

It's a completely and totally different situation.

Yeah, because it's not like the second wolrd war didnt teach us that static defenses are useless or anything....
Kursk showed us that they're great so long as you're prepared to counter-attack.
Aircraft are better than ships. Simple fact.
No it isn't. You cannot blockade an enemy with aircraft, and nor can you transport vast amounts of manpower and materiél with aircraft. Ships are less manouverable and have less firepower per soldier, but they are extremely hard to destroy, and carry the largest-calibre guns around excluding static defences and railguns.

Aircraft are better than ships. Simple fact.

Bullshit. Aircraft serve a different purpose than ships do. They have their proper environments and their proper usages, but they cannot truly fill the shoes of the other.

There's a reason there are aircraft carriers, and it's not because aircraft are inherently superior.

Aircraft are better than ships. Simple fact.

Aircraft cannot sink ships that have adequate aircover. The British navy had enough air cover to sink any convoy that tried to send an army to England.

Kursk showed us that they're great so long as you're prepared to counter-attack.

No it isn't. You cannot blockade an enemy with aircraft, and nor can you transport vast amounts of manpower and materiél with aircraft. Ships are less manouverable and have less firepower per soldier, but they are extremely hard to destroy, and carry the largest-calibre guns around excluding static defences and railguns.

And the west wall, the magiot line, the atlantic wall, and others prove that they are more often than not, useless.

Ok, ill refrase it. When aircaft fight ships, ships get sunk. A lot of them get sunk.

Aircraft cannot sink ships that have adequate aircover. The British navy had enough air cover to sink any convoy that tried to send an army to England.

The point is you attack them for long enough that you dont. Did the British escort convoys runnig through the channel during the Battle of Britain? No.

Why? Because the Luftwaffe was in the way.

Two other things I don't see mentioned in terms of Germany's ability to take Britain.

First, Hitler overestimated Britain mentally, probably why they pulled out of the Battle of Britain early, he held them in higher regard than they probably deserved at the time. As a corollary to that, Churchill privately felt that the German solider was better man for man than the English and rather fretted over that. As a further corollary, I think the Germans and British are far closer to each other mentally than politics suggest, the German-France relationship is an aberration caused by the 1st & 2nd WW.

Second, though it might sound trite, if you've played chess or Risk or whatever, you know that even where you're clearly winning, you remain paranoid about losing, you actually minimize risk as much as possible. Britain was simply too risky for the Germans.

I'm sure Germany could have taken Britain but the cost would have been too much to do anything else, the double edged sword was by not taking it, they'd lose over the long run anyway.

...Ok, ill refrase it. When aircaft fight ships, ships get sunk. A lot of them get sunk.

Correction: When aircraft fight ships lacking adequate aircover, ships get sunk.

Oh so you're swapping Sealion for an attack on Spain which stretches the Germans massively as they fight what they see as peasants in a country full of anti-fascists with 3 years of fighting behind them, as well as the pretty well-funded, trained and experienced military of Spain. Good call.

Yeah, fine, in which case you 'just' get tens of thousands of Republicans dogging them all the way to Gibraltar, at which point the Germans catch the ferry and invade, winning instantly because they are the rightful inheritors of the earth or something. I've been up for 22 hours and I'm still kicking your arse.

I dont even thinl you need to take Gibraltar. Once mainland Britain falls, the colonies wont matter.

Correction: When aircraft fight ships lacking adequate aircover, ships get sunk.

Which is exactly what I'm proposing.

Which is exactly what I'm proposing.

The British navy had adequate aircover in the English Channel. That's why the Germans had to destroy the Royal Airforce before any invasion.

He wasted resources building stupidly huge and complex weapons that never saw the light of day, or, if they did, weren't as effective as their more practical Allied counterparts.
Seriously, how many super-heavy tanks does one Reich need? And then there was the V-weapons program, which managed to vaguely annoy the UK while Germany was leveled by strategic bombing.

the V-weapons were "wonder weapons" 10 years ahead of its time, i think it might scare the enemy a little, to attack a enemy city without 1 loss, also, the Germans had the best tanks in the world, would you want more super-heavy tanks if you had the choice? of course you would. Also the Germans had jet planes, and against allied bombers, they were deadly, but when the jet aircraft were built it was already too late for the germans to deploy them in large numbers, think about it, if you were the allies you would know that the germans have 88mm guns, the 1st assault rifle in the world (10 rounds more than the BAR, also more accurate), jets, missiles, the best tanks ever created, German soldiers were also better trained than both English and American during the start of the war (for example, the Germans would know what to do if a their officer dies, a American or British soldier would simply wait for orders). I'd be a bit worried about the enemy.

The reason the Germans failed in Britain was because right as the Royal Airforce was on the edge of being "beyond repair," the Germans stopped attacking Airforce targets and began striking civilian targets. This gave the Royal Airforce (which was not quite yet beyond repair) time to get its act together, scrap together some replacements, and start up the fight again.

Had the Germans continued demolishing military targets, there wouldn't have been any way for Britain to defend themselves, even should there have been a lull in the fighting. The bases, airplanes, and most importantly supply of young men who know how to fly would have been annihilated, and even months without airstrikes wouldn't have allowed Britain to rebuild their military.

But, instead, the Germans decided to bomb cities and such.

Germany didn't invade Britain because the British had complete surface control of the seas between Britain and Europe. German troops could not be transported across the channel.

Germany didn't bomb the British Ports because they lacked heavy bombers and didn't have sufficient control of the skies over Britain.

In their campaign against the airfields and aero industry the Germans tried but failed to destroy British airpower. The decision to bomb civilians was an admission of this failure.

The Germans tried what they could do set up Britain for invasion but simply didn't have the resources. No amount of wishful thinking can alter that fact.

They should have ignored Britain and gone for Russia from the start. The British couldn't have invaded Europe.

If you let the British go, they would obviously prepare for war, it would be better attack a unprepared nation ASAP, also, the Germans didn't have enough AA-guns, so they can't afford get attacked by British bombers, the German High Command had no choice.

umm, for u people who think that capturing Spain is a good, idea, well, it isn't, before ww2 the Germans fought for Spain (thats why luftwaffe pilots r pro), I dont think it would be wise to attack Spain, add another front and destroy everything they perviously fought for, also, span was in a civil war, it would be just sad to attack a nation during a civil war.

I dont even thinl you need to take Gibraltar. Once mainland Britain falls, the colonies wont matter.Gibraltar mattered a lot. Had the Axis taken it, they might even have been able to close the strait for all practical purposes, or at the very least hampered allied supply to Malta. Gibraltar was technically a domino that, if properly exploited, would have set off a number of other dominoes.

They forgot that russian railroads had different gauge than german.
And planned supply lines in Russia to move mainly by rail.

umm, for u people who think that capturing Spain is a good, idea, well, it isn't, before ww2 the Germans fought for Spain (thats why luftwaffe pilots r pro), I dont think it would be wise to attack Spain, add another front and destroy everything they perviously fought for, also, span was in a civil war, it would be just sad to attack a nation during a civil war.The Spanish Civil War lasted until April 1939, well before World War Two started off in Europe. 'sides, I doubt Hitler would have cared if it was sad or not.

there are a couple of short answers to the op question. one is an appearant failure to read and understand sun tzu.

bits about supply lines and sources of supply. pioneering the rapid deployment force might have been a great military coop, except it left too little attention to actually securing sources of supply outside of the field of battle. i mean by leaving no place they could reach outside of their field of battle, the left no place safe to continue the scale of production a sustained use of that stratigy would have required.

at the same time, the forces they opposed, had a source of supply, pretty much all of the u.s., outside of and beyond their reach.

It's generally expected that an attacker will lose more troops than the defender, which applies to airspace defense as well, since I'm certain a number of those losses were attributed to ground fire.

If you're fast enough, or if u surprise the enemy, you would easily win, for example: Pearl Harbour.

The Spanish Civil War lasted until April 1939, well before World War Two started off in Europe. 'sides, I doubt Hitler would have cared if it was sad or not.

yea, but America would, the American government were looking for anything to go into a war against hitler, they could then use it as propaganda, and give it a few months, and the Americans would have trained and mobilised a massive army. Not good for hitler. You also can't get a nation to cheer up after a civil war, unless if u gave them free stuff and no taxes, Spain would have easily fought for, or against Germany but they didn't did they? they were still very poor and morale was low besides 1939 was the year ww2 started, u cant throw a country into war again!

The German's mistake is that they weren't American

ummm, wouldn't that just worsen the situation?:rolleyes:

yea, but America would, the American government were looking for anything to go into a war against hitler, they could then use it as propaganda, and give it a few months, and the Americans would have trained and mobilised a massive army. The shift in American opinion was very gruadual. An attack on Spain would not have been any more useful for American propaganda than the invasions of Poland, France, Russia, or the Balkans were.
Not good for hitler. You also can't get a nation to cheer up after a civil war, unless if u gave them free stuff and no taxes, Spain would have easily fought for, or against Germany but they didn't did they? they were still very poor and morale was low besides 1939 was the year ww2 started, u cant throw a country into war again!
Spain fought for Germany, insofar as they sent "volunteers" to the Eastern Front. Franco was dead set on not joining the war, that's why they didn't fight for or against Germany.

The British navy had adequate aircover in the English Channel. That's why the Germans had to destroy the Royal Airforce before any invasion.

No you don't. All you need to do is to incapacitate it enough so that it cant effectivly operate over the channel.

Okay, see, the problem is, the fleets have more than enough supplies to deal with what transports the Germans had.

Even if the Germans could do what you're suggesting--which they couldn't--they still didn't have an adequate transportation fleet. Their transportation fleet was mostly a collection of river barges and dinky boats not suited to a placid lake, let alone the English channel.

Furthermore, even ignoring these failings, there weren't anywhere near enough transports. The numbers required to take the British Isles would have numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and there was no way the fleet was large enough to transport that.

Don't forget transporting supplies, and the simple fact that bombing the ports would be temporary damage at best that would eventually be repaired, thus allowing the Royal Navy to continue acting, which would stop the supplies, which would put an end to Sealion.

It. Wasn't. Possible.

have any of u ppl heard of the Bismark? It took the whole Royal Navy & Support from the Royal Air Force just to sink that 1 ship because it sank Britain's best ship. I think you wouldn't call that a dinky boat.

[QUOTE=Laerod;14176159]The shift in American opinion was very gruadual. An attack on Spain would not have been any more useful for American propaganda than the invasions of Poland, France, Russia, or the Balkans were.

No, it wasn't. FDR was dead set on fighting Heitler, cos he new what a threat he was. He was pining to attack him, and in hhis eye, Hitler's declearion of war was the best thing that cuold happen.

The shift in American opinion was very gruadual. An attack on Spain would not have been any more useful for American propaganda than the invasions of Poland, France, Russia, or the Balkans were.

Spain fought for Germany, insofar as they sent "volunteers" to the Eastern Front. Franco was dead set on not joining the war, that's why they didn't fight for or against Germany.

Thats cause Franco had nothing, no money and no resources, therefore, no war.

The vast majority of it was down to fighter pilots, the ground based defences were a profound waste of time outside of their role in raising morale in the cities.

Probably, but then again, there's the distance factor. British defensive squadrons could resupply and intercept in much less time than it took for the Luftwaffe to do the same, and of course there's the whole question of radar and knowing where and when to pounce. Quite a few advantages for the British really.

Oh, I have no doubt the Germans could inflict some serious casualties. I just question the idea that it would have been enough.

Well, that really depends on where the resources are tied up. If Germany didn't open a 2nd front, they would have had a lot more to toss at Britain over time than they did in the course of the war.


Maybe, but that would have required them to spend less time working on other things. The Germans could only do so many things at once, and if they were expanding air power, they couldn't spent many resources building more ships, and so on and so forth.


Very true, but if you take out the RAF, including the Lancaster bombers, then some of their planned superweapons would have been completed, one notable example being the V3 supergun/rocket hybrid and it's launch complex. A facility like that, along with plans to supply the complex with hundreds of V3s and V2s over the course of weeks would have allowed Nazi Germany to do to London and other major cities what it did to Sevastopol, only worse.

Something like that would have massively changed the course of history I suspect.


I think what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had managed to gain air superiority, inflicted causualties on the Royal Navy, and so on, would be that the Germans would gain a beachhead. Maybe even take a town or two near the coast.

But the massive defense works would have stopped the Germans cold before too much more.

In no way do I ever see them successfully conquering the British Isles.


The British were a very hardened people, I'll give them that, but they would have had a rather large problem with the weapons shortages, especially with the losses in Dunkirk. I mean, they were essentially giving Home Guard troops oversized antitank grenades with instructions to run close, slap the tank with it, and run away before it exploded.

They would have put up one intense fight, no doubt, but if the Warsaw uprising, and it's subsequent quelling, were any indication, the German army would have been quite capable of suppressing it with selective scorched earth (and people) tactics.


And even if they had, what then? The United States might've been all for staying isolationist, but I think we'd have had a thing or two to say even if we were staying out until then. And, of course, the logistics of holding the British Isles would be an extreme nightmare, nevermind the fact the Germans have the Soviets breathing down their necks...Stalin being the paranoid bastard he was, he'd probably have kicked Hitler's door down as soon as he saw the Germans so occupied.

The end result would've probably been a Soviet controlled Europe and a barely freed United Kingdom by the United States.

Maybe, it's quite possible. But at the same time, it wasn't as if there weren't anti-communist elements inside the states with high positions that weren't adverse to the idea of forming an alliance with Nazi Germany to wipe out the communist threat. If Germany could take the British Isles, even for a while, it's not impossible that it could have worked out some sort of pact with the United States.

Of course, the question also remains to be asked as to whether the time and resources spent would have been different. If Germany hadn't expended so much for it's immediate war effort with the 2 front war, Heisenberg might have managed to get a bit more resources put in his atomic program. The Germans might have had a few false starts in it, but they did get on the right track eventually.

Germany getting the bomb would have spelled the end of any Soviet invasion. V2s of the time wouldn't be able to carry them, but they certainly had other means of delivery.

have any of u ppl heard of the Bismark? It took the whole Royal Navy & Support from the Royal Air Force just to sink that 1 ship because it sank Britain's best ship. I think you wouldn't call that a dinky boat.Notice how Britain had enough ships to spare to sink it while Germany only had two Bismarcks.

The reason the Germans failed in Britain was because right as the Royal Airforce was on the edge of being "beyond repair," the Germans stopped attacking Airforce targets and began striking civilian targets. This gave the Royal Airforce (which was not quite yet beyond repair) time to get its act together, scrap together some replacements, and start up the fight again.

Had the Germans continued demolishing military targets, there wouldn't have been any way for Britain to defend themselves, even should there have been a lull in the fighting. The bases, airplanes, and most importantly supply of young men who know how to fly would have been annihilated, and even months without airstrikes wouldn't have allowed Britain to rebuild their military.

But, instead, the Germans decided to bomb cities and such.

what does beyond repair mean?

tHey were producing more fighters than ever, and their pilots lost was more sustainable than the Luftwaffe's rate of loss.

Wrong they didn't need US oil. They seized Malaysia (home to British Petroleum) And the Dutch East Indies ( home to Shell oil). they attacked because they feared the US would try and help the British get those colonies back by linking up the Hawaii and Philippine navies.

actually ur wrong, the US said that the Japanese should surrender ALL of its land otherwise the US navy would attack, the some of US navy ships were already in pearl harbour, so that Japanese attacked before the US did, also Japan didn't need the oil, they needed transport ships to get the oil, they spent so much money on offence they didn't plan their defence.

No, it wasn't. FDR was dead set on fighting Heitler, cos he new what a threat he was. He was pining to attack him, and in hhis eye, Hitler's declearion of war was the best thing that cuold happen.FDR is not America. In fact, what you say only proves my point: FDR was dead set on intervening against Hitler, but public opinion was what held him back.
Thats cause Franco had nothing, no money and no resources, therefore, no war.The only thing that probably would have gotten Franco to join the Axis militarily was a decisive victory against the British on their own soil. Even if he had the money and resources, he wasn't about to join.

have any of u ppl heard of the Bismark? It took the whole Royal Navy & Support from the Royal Air Force just to sink that 1 ship because it sank Britain's best ship. I think you wouldn't call that a dinky boat.

Germany never effectively used Bismarck, precisely because it was too valuable to lose.

That's the problem with building a ship that's too powerful. When you finally lose it, it's just too great a cost.

If you're fast enough, or if u surprise the enemy, you would easily win, for example: Pearl Harbour.

Pearl Harbor was a raid, no more, no less. It certainly wasn't seizing ground. The primary objective was a crippling strike on existing war assets so that they could negotiate a better deal for themselves while they held the upper hand. That didn't work because the carriers, were not in dock, and served as a powerful strategic asset that more or less killed the buy time and bargaining position tactic.

Notice how Britain had enough ships to spare to sink it while Germany only had two Bismarcks.

umm, it was only 1, the other 1 was somewhere blockading supply ships, so 1 damaged Bismarck (travelling at 9 knots) vs. 200 ships and aircraft. Fair fight.

FDR is not America. In fact, what you say only proves my point: FDR was dead set on intervening against Hitler, but public opinion was what held him back.
The only thing that probably would have gotten Franco to join the Axis militarily was a decisive victory against the British on their own soil. Even if he had the money and resources, he wasn't about to join.

of course he'd join, he's a dictator, he's got nothing to lose.

Germany never effectively used Bismarck, precisely because it was too valuable to lose.

That's the problem with building a ship that's too powerful. When you finally lose it, it's just too great a cost.

the Bismarck was built to blockade Britain, it sunk Britain's best ship the HMS Hood, the British got mad and sent their whole navy and air force to sink it.

of course he'd join, he's a dictator, he's got nothing to lose.

This statement makes little sense.

Dictators get power. They do have something to lose: The power they gained. Why Franco would want to risk that power in a war that doesn't concern him at all, I can't fathom.

the Bismarck was built to blockade Britain, it sunk Britain's best ship the HMS Hood, the British got mad and sent their whole navy and air force to sink it.

And Germany lost and was still left without any naval power. Clearly, it didn't work.

umm, it was only 1, the other 1 was somewhere blockading supply ships, so 1 damaged Bismarck (travelling at 9 knots) vs. 200 ships and aircraft. Fair fight.You're forgetting the Tirpitz.
of course he'd join, he's a dictator, he's got nothing to lose.No.

This statement makes little sense.

Dictators get power. They do have something to lose: The power they gained. Why Franco would want to risk that power in a war that doesn't concern him at all, I can't fathom.

yes, he didn't join the war because he didn't have resources or citizen support, therefore he knew he'd lose power, so he stayed neutral

You're forgetting the Tirpitz.
No.

The Tirpitz was on blockade duty, miles away, the Kreigsmarine wont put their best ships together, it would make a too good target, the only backup ship the Bismarck had was the Prinz Eugen which deserted the bismarck for repairs

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?

1 - German ignorance in the leadership.
2 - Hitler taking away his officers flexiblities.
3 - Hitler arresting/sacking/killing some of his generals.
4 - Hitler taking a sleeping pill on D-Day, so not waking up in time to release the Panzers to Jodl and Rommel.
5 - Operation barbarossa.
6 - The decision not to pull out of Stalingrad.
7 - Leaving the Tirpitz up there doing nothing.
8 - Underestimating the RAF.
9 - Letting 400,000 British, French and Belgian troops escape at Dunkirk.
10 - Armament/defence in width, not depth.
11 - Not making enough Panzer IV's and Panthers, but instead trying to make more Tigers etc.
12 - Not prioritising Jet aircraft until it was too late.

13 - Starting it (kidding.)

Above is a list of some important German mistakes in no particular order. Options 8, 5 and 4 are probably the most damning.

And Germany lost and was still left without any naval power. Clearly, it didn't work.

they still had u-boats and other battleships.

yes, he didn't join the war because he didn't have resources or citizen support, therefore he knew he'd lose power, so he stayed neutral

Exactly. Despite being a dictator, he did have something to lose.

they still had u-boats and other battleships.

Yes, but their submarines far exceeded the blockade capacity of their battleships and probably cost a good deal less to build.

In that manner, Bismarck was woefully over costly. It isn't silly to build, if you can actually use it effectively, but they never really got the chance, because Britain could always pwn Germany in naval battle, without ever having to build new ships.

Submarines allowed them to actually fight, while risking the least amount possible.

the Bismarck was built to blockade Britain, it sunk Britain's best ship the HMS Hood, the British got mad and sent their whole navy and air force to sink it.

The HMS Hood was our flagship, or capital ship, the symbol of our resistance along side the Spitfire. But by no means our best ship.

the King George V class, with ships such as the Prince of Wales were our best =]

1 - German ignorance in the leadership.
2 - Hitler taking away his officers flexiblities.
3 - Hitler arresting/sacking/killing some of his generals.
4 - Hitler taking a sleeping pill on D-Day, so not waking up in time to release the Panzers to Jodl and Rommel.
5 - Operation barbarossa.
6 - The decision not to pull out of Stalingrad.
7 - Leaving the Tirpitz up there doing nothing.
8 - Underestimating the RAF.
9 - Letting 400,000 British, French and Belgian troops escape at Dunkirk.
10 - Armament/defence in width, not depth.
11 - Not making enough Panzer IV's and Panthers, but instead trying to make more Tigers etc.
12 - Not prioritising Jet aircraft until it was too late.

13 - Starting it (kidding.)

Above is a list of some important German mistakes in no particular order. Options 8, 5 and 4 are probably the most damning.

I agree, Hitler killed his best and favourite general, Rommel (the worst decision Hitler made ever, but the Tirpiz was on blockade duty, but the RN learned how to avoid the ship.

The HMS Hood was our flagship, or capital ship, the symbol of our resistance along side the Spitfire. But by no means our best ship.

the King George V class, with ships such as the Prince of Wales were our best =]

the Prince of Wales was assigned to defend the HMS Hood, they were owned by the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen, they did put up a good fight though, the problem with the HMS Hood was that it was a WWI ship, so most of the armour was on the hull, all the Germans did was fire a few shells above the hull and watch the RN's flagship sink.

The Tirpitz was on blockade duty, miles away, the Kreigsmarine wont put their best ships together, it would make a too good target, the only backup ship the Bismarck had was the Prinz Eugen which deserted the bismarck for repairsThis in no way invalidates what I said.

Exactly. Despite being a dictator, he did have something to lose.



Yes, but their submarines far exceeded the blockade capacity of their battleships and probably cost a good deal less to build.

In that manner, Bismarck was woefully over costly. It isn't silly to build, if you can actually use it effectively, but they never really got the chance, because Britain could always pwn Germany in naval battle, without ever having to build new ships.

Submarines allowed them to actually fight, while risking the least amount possible.

The Bismarck was damaged, it was too slow bacause it's engine was hit, the Luftwaffe were too slow giving it support, and the Kreigsmarine wouldn't dare send any of its ships to try and stop the whole RN and RAF in the atlantic.

the Prince of Wales was assigned to defend the HMS Hood, they were owned by the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen, they did put up a good fight though, the problem with the HMS Hood was that it was a WWI ship, so most of the armour was on the hull, all the Germans did was fire a few shells above the hull and watch the RN's flagship sink.

Yes, the HMS Hood was very old, very big, and was a Battlecrusier, so armour was lacking. 1 shot to the magazine is all it took.

The German ships were very good. The surface fleet was very powerful and if they went around together, or had more vessels. The war may of been different.

Personal fave: Scharnhorst and her sister, Giesunaue (I cannot spell it for the life of me =S)

1 - German ignorance in the leadership.
2 - Hitler taking away his officers flexiblities.
3 - Hitler arresting/sacking/killing some of his generals.
4 - Hitler taking a sleeping pill on D-Day, so not waking up in time to release the Panzers to Jodl and Rommel.
5 - Operation barbarossa.
6 - The decision not to pull out of Stalingrad.
7 - Leaving the Tirpitz up there doing nothing.
8 - Underestimating the RAF.
9 - Letting 400,000 British, French and Belgian troops escape at Dunkirk.
10 - Armament/defence in width, not depth.
11 - Not making enough Panzer IV's and Panthers, but instead trying to make more Tigers etc.
12 - Not prioritising Jet aircraft until it was too late.

13 - Starting it (kidding.)

Above is a list of some important German mistakes in no particular order. Options 8, 5 and 4 are probably the most damning.

Not invading Britain and not invading Malta dont get a gurnsey?

Also, you forgot the decision to not drive on Moscow in 1941.
I'd probably add leaving Goering in charge of the air focre, since he was clearly useless.

ps, the tiger was around before the panther.

Yes, the HMS Hood was very old, very big, and was a Battlecrusier, so armour was lacking. 1 shot to the magazine is all it took.

The German ships were very good. The surface fleet was very powerful and if they went around together, or had more vessels. The war may of been different.

Personal fave: Scharnhorst and her sister, Giesunaue (I cannot spell it for the life of me =S)

yes, the Germans didn't have enough ships. They had only enough for blockades and raiding allied ships but they were totally outnumbered, just like in WWI.

Yes, the HMS Hood was very old, very big, and was a Battlecrusier, so armour was lacking. 1 shot to the magazine is all it took.

The German ships were very good. The surface fleet was very powerful and if they went around together, or had more vessels. The war may of been different.

Personal fave: Scharnhorst and her sister, Giesunaue (I cannot spell it for the life of me =S)Gneisenau.

Gneisenau.

Thank you <3

Not invading Britain and not invading Malta dont get a gurnsey.

Also, you forgot the decision to not drive on Moscow in 1941.
I'd probably add leaving Goering in charge of the air focre, since he was clearly useless.

Goering was appointed to his position because he was a ace in WWI, he wasn't the commander type, he's more of a soldier. and his psychologist thought he was crazy, too much power and too much stress. Rommel also was a hero in WWI he served in the Wurttemberg regiment

Yes, the HMS Hood was very old, very big, and was a Battlecrusier, so armour was lacking. 1 shot to the magazine is all it took.

The German ships were very good. The surface fleet was very powerful and if they went around together, or had more vessels. The war may of been different.

Personal fave: Scharnhorst and her sister, Giesunaue (I cannot spell it for the life of me =S)

mY fav has to be the Type XXI U-boat.

If introduced sonner, it would have changed the result of the war.

yes, the Germans didn't have enough ships. They had only enough for blockades and raiding allied ships but they were totally outnumbered, just like in WWI.The didn't have enough ships for a blockade.

Goering was appointed to his position because he was a ace in WWI, he wasn't the commander type, he's more of a soldier. and his psychologist thought he was crazy, too much power and too much stress.

It's probably really more because he was Hilter's ally since the start.

And your point is exactly why he shouldn't be commander in chief.

Surly Kesselring was brilliant for the role.

The didn't have enough ships for a blockade.

What about the battle of the atlantic?

that's a blocade.

Goering was appointed to his position because he was a ace in WWI, he wasn't the commander type, he's more of a soldier. and his psychologist thought he was crazy, too much power and too much stress. Rommel also was a hero in WWI he served in the Wurttemberg regimentActually, Goering wasn't only an ace, he was the commander of the Flying Circus after Richthofen got shot down. He did lead men to battle, even if he was a nutcase.

What about the battle of the atlantic?

that's a blocade.Surely it not working would be ample indicator that they didn't have enough ships to make it work.

The didn't have enough ships for a blockade.

they did, but most of them were scattered along the pacific, in Russia, in the supporting the afrika corps, if they concentrated all their ships in 1 spot they should have all the firepower needed to blockade the whole of east Britain.

Actually, Goering wasn't only an ace, he was the commander of the Flying Circus after Richthofen got shot down. He did lead men to battle, even if he was a nutcase.

But he was useless on the larger scale command foisted upon him

Actually, Goering wasn't only an ace, he was the commander of the Flying Circus after Richthofen got shot down. He did lead men to battle, even if he was a nutcase.

Thats a regiment all u do is execute orders, he's not fit to command the whole luftwaffe he has to make all the orders and plans for all of the campaigns.

It's probably really more because he was Hilter's ally since the start.

And your point is exactly why he shouldn't be commander in chief.

Surly Kesselring was brilliant for the role.

I think Marseilles would have done a good job if he was promoted to a higher rank.

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?

Hitler was actually a poor MILITARY strategist-much of the Wehrmacht's early success came from a combination of strategic surprise (due largely to anti-war sentiment in the West combined with inertia in the remaining command staffs), and having access to good tacticians (killed mainly by Der Fuhrer's paranoia). Blitzkreig works best when your opponent is committed to a slow, infantry-based, conventional war of attrition. i.e. the kind of war that Britain and France had committed to in their training doctrines, or (more recently) the Iraqi Army was committed to in 1989. The concept of Blitzkreig is the same one made famous by NB Forrest in the 1860's: "Git thar the Fustest with the Mostest". It relies on a fast, mechanized advance with immediate "Shock-and-awe" strikes at "Linkage lines" while the second wave locks the enemy into his fortifications, then smashes them either by flanking them to the rear, or battering them down with overwhelming firepower while they're denied resupply or support by the advancing first and third waves.

The problem with a Blitz, is that an enemy prepared to face the Blitz can stop your momentum-and without momentum, you have no offense.

The Russians did this using "General Winter" and pre-pillaging/burning ahead of the german columns-similar in some ways to how Sheridan pacified the Shennandoah Valley by burning or confiscating every bit of food, and destroying all shelter. Stalin's "Scorched Earth" forced German units to maintain long, often complex, supply lines much deeper than they were realistically able to support, and the onset of winter weather, which the Germans were ill-equipped to deal with, put them at a severe disadvantage.

Where the Germans screwed up, though... was in attacking their Jews-the Holocaust delayed supplies to units on the Eastern Front (the trains that, in a rational offensive, would have been carrying food, ammo, and winter gear were instead hauling people to be tortured, gassed, and abused. Manpower that should have been fighting on the front, and weapons that should have been fighting on the front were instead used to maintain Atrocities, and the whole death-machine denied Germany critical intellectual capital and raw manpower at a time when they were taking on, quite literally, the world.)

Viewed dispassionately, the Holocaust itself was the most titanic Strategic Blunder in history.

they did, but most of them were scattered along the pacific, in Russia, in the supporting the afrika corps, if they concentrated all their ships in 1 spot they should have all the firepower needed to blockade the whole of east Britain.
I'll believe this when you present a plausible source for it.

Goring...founder of the Gestapo, responsible for creating the concentration camps, shamelessly looted art treasures from all over occupied Europe a man who never expressed even the smalest shred of guilt at the Nuremburg trials....definitely a much more significant and evil figure than some imagine! Hardly fair just to let him off as an innocent buffoon!

But he was useless on the larger scale command foisted upon him

Thats a regiment all u do is execute orders, he's not fit to command the whole luftwaffe he has to make all the orders and plans for all of the campaigns.

Undoubtedly. It's just that the "not the commander type" was an inaccurate label.

Hitler was actually a poor MILITARY strategist-much of the Wehrmacht's early success came from a combination of strategic surprise (due largely to anti-war sentiment in the West combined with inertia in the remaining command staffs), and having access to good tacticians (killed mainly by Der Fuhrer's paranoia). Blitzkreig works best when your opponent is committed to a slow, infantry-based, conventional war of attrition. i.e. the kind of war that Britain and France had committed to in their training doctrines, or (more recently) the Iraqi Army was committed to in 1989. The concept of Blitzkreig is the same one made famous by NB Forrest in the 1860's: "Git thar the Fustest with the Mostest". It relies on a fast, mechanized advance with immediate "Shock-and-awe" strikes at "Linkage lines" while the second wave locks the enemy into his fortifications, then smashes them either by flanking them to the rear, or battering them down with overwhelming firepower while they're denied resupply or support by the advancing first and third waves.

The problem with a Blitz, is that an enemy prepared to face the Blitz can stop your momentum-and without momentum, you have no offense.

The Russians did this using "General Winter" and pre-pillaging/burning ahead of the german columns-similar in some ways to how Sheridan pacified the Shennandoah Valley by burning or confiscating every bit of food, and destroying all shelter. Stalin's "Scorched Earth" forced German units to maintain long, often complex, supply lines much deeper than they were realistically able to support, and the onset of winter weather, which the Germans were ill-equipped to deal with, put them at a severe disadvantage.

Where the Germans screwed up, though... was in attacking their Jews-the Holocaust delayed supplies to units on the Eastern Front (the trains that, in a rational offensive, would have been carrying food, ammo, and winter gear were instead hauling people to be tortured, gassed, and abused. Manpower that should have been fighting on the front, and weapons that should have been fighting on the front were instead used to maintain Atrocities, and the whole death-machine denied Germany critical intellectual capital and raw manpower at a time when they were taking on, quite literally, the world.)

Viewed dispassionately, the Holocaust itself was the most titanic Strategic Blunder in history.

I agree, apart from 1 thing. The "Blitz" was the failed German bombing campaign against British cities to break morale, which didn't work, and should not be used in respect to the Blitzkrieg tactic.

(I got in alot of trouble for doing that on my mock A level exam, I was lazy and used it as short hand, changed the whole subject of my writing.)

I'll believe this when you present a plausible source for it.

here u go:

GERMAN RAIDERS IN THE PACIFIC

The operations of the German auxiliary cruisers covered the period from April 1940 to December 1942. In all, ten ships were employed, one of them making two cruises. Five were destroyed during their cruises in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, one was destroyed by an explosion and fire in harbour at Yokohama, and another was damaged in the English Channel and returned to Germany. That they were efficient fighting ships of their type was shown by the fact that one raider in three separate actions outranged and damaged two British armed merchant cruisers and sank a third, HMS Voltaire. Another raider, the Kormoran, was responsible for the loss with all hands of HMAS Sydney, though she herself was sunk by that cruiser.

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Epi-c1-WH2-1Epi-j.html

I agree, apart from 1 thing. The "Blitz" was the failed German bombing campaign against British cities to break morale, which didn't work, and should not be used in respect to the Blitzkrieg tactic.

(I got in alot of trouble for doing that on my mock A level exam, I was lazy and used it as short hand, changed the whole subject of my writing.)

A proper blitz is artillery, infantry, mobile armour and air force attacking en masse, in Britain it was just the luftwaffe.

Goring...founder of the Gestapo, responsible for creating the concentration camps, shamelessly looted art treasures from all over occupied Europe a man who never expressed even the smalest shred of guilt at the Nuremburg trials....definitely a much more significant and evil figure than some imagine! Hardly fair just to let him off as an innocent buffoon!

I don't think Goering had anything to do with Dachau. The first German camp.


Camps such as this were being used by the British in the Boer War, and by the Spanish even earlier.

A proper blitz is artillery, infantry, mobile armour and air force attacking en masse, in Britain it was just the luftwaffe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

^^

Be back soon.

I don't think Goering had anything to do with Dachau. The first German camp.


Camps such as this were being used by the British in the Boer War, and by the Spanish even earlier.

Lord Kitchener was the man who invented the camps during the Boer war.

And the west wall, the magiot line, the atlantic wall, and others prove that they are more often than not, useless.

Ok, ill refrase it. When aircaft fight ships, ships get sunk. A lot of them get sunk.
THE MAGINOT LINE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING IN 1940


Often overlooked, fixed defenses had an important role in World War II. Of the many fortified positions that influenced the course of the war (from the Gustav Line in Italy to the numerous fortified islands in the Pacific) none was so extensive as France's Maginot Line. Nor have any
been so misunderstood in the popular imagination.

The seeds of the Maginot Line were sown in the trench slaughter of World War I. After much debate, in the late 1920s the French began to develop an elaborate system of fortifications on their frontier with Germany. Named after a war minister who had lost an arm at Verdun,
the Maginot Line was designed to prevent a direct German invasion of France by making such an attempt prohibitively costly in lives and time, permitting the French to husband their resources in the rear for a decisive counterstroke with mobile forces.

The basic concept was by no means as absurd as it would appear in retrospect. Among the greatest fortification experts in the world since the seventeenth century, the French were fully aware that their pro posed new fortified zone (it was not a "line" at all) was not impregnable.
But it would be so difficult to break that it would deter a German offensive into northeastern France. Unable to deliver a swift, decisive blow against it, the Germans would have to give up all thought of war with France, or accept a protracted war of attrition, or find an alternative
way to carry on the war. It was this last that French policymakers perceived as the most likely eventuality, specifically a German thrust into Belgium. And such an undertaking by a revitalized Germany would inevitably bring Great Britain into the war on the side of France, a necessity given France's manpower inferiority vis-A-vis Germany's.

So the principal function of the Maginot Line was to canalize a German offensive into Belgium, where it could be met by motorized French armies supported by British resources. This plan had the added (if unspoken) advantage of having the horrors of war visited upon Belgium rather than on France.

As built, the Maginot Line was a wonder to behold (as, indeed, its remains still are). It consisted of a loose belt of fortifications starting a few miles inside France. The defensive zone varied from five to ten miles in depth, liberally seasoned with sunken forts, redoubts, pillboxes, observation towers, tank traps, and other works. These works were designed to make maximum use of available ground, which already favored the defense, as northeastern France (Alsace and, Lorraine) is rather mountainous, often heavily forested, and occasionally marshy. Most positions (which were all gastight) were mutually supporting, and all were capable of holding out independently for extended periods if necessary. In some of the more densely fortified areas the principal works were linked together by underground railroads to permit the rapid movement of reinforcements and munitions.

Actually only about eighty-seven miles of the Franco-German frontier were covered by permanent works, at the extraordinary cost of 80.5 million francs per mile (about $20 million in 1930s dollars and 360 million in 2008 dollars). These works covered the most vulnerable areas. Less vulnerable areas (such as the thirty-mile Sarre Gap) were to be protected in time of war by demolitions, waterlines (such as the Rhine itself), and inundations, covered by combat troops
in field fortifications. Despite the enormous expenditure, over 7 billion francs (nearly $30 billion in today's dollars), the system was not fully complete by 1940, but sufficiently so to have precisely the deterrent effect for which the French had hoped.

There seems little doubt that the Maginot Line was more or less impenetrable from a frontal attack, at least at a price the Germans were willing to pay. Certainly German war planners proposed nothing more than demonstrations against the line in the event of war, preferring instead
to go into Belgium, precisely as the French expected. French planning for the anticipated German offensive into Belgium presumed that the Germans would come more or less as they had in 1914, a massive wheeling drive across the northern Belgian plain and then southward into France. To meet this, the French allocated the best part of their army (about thirty divisions, including virtually all of their dozen motorized and light armored divisions) to their left flank, from whence, in company with the fully motorized British, they would boldly advance into Belgium
in the event of a German invasion, to meet the enemy along the Dyle River, east of Brussels for a decisive battle.

In their initial planning for their 1940 offensive against France, the Germans actually came up with a plan that more or less was what the French expected of them, a holding action against the Maginot Line with a straightforward drive across the Belgian plain, taking advantage of the
superior mobility and effectiveness of their seventeen armored and motorized divisions. The objective was to secure as much of the country as possible in anticipation of future offensives. Although this plan met with the approval of the General Staff, Hitler was dissatisfied. The fiihrer
wanted a quick win to maintain his popularity, and the plan suggested a protracted struggle. A relatively junior officer, Erich von Manstein, thereupon came up with a more complex, bolder, and riskier plan.

Under the new plan, a portion of the army, including some armored and motorized formations supported by airborne troops, would attack directly into Belgium and the Netherlands as a feint to draw Allied reserves northward. Meanwhile the bulk of the army would attack through the Ardennes, a rugged, heavily forested region covering most of Luxembourg plus adjacent portions of France and Belgium.

The idea was to slice through the Allied forces, creating an enormous pocket in Belgium, perhaps winning the war in one grand offensive. This new plan appealed to Hitler's sense of grandeur, despite the risks which were considerable. Many years earlier Marshal Philippe Petain, hero of World War I, had been asked about the possibilities of a German offensive in this very area, to which he replied, "The Ardennes are impenetrable, if adequately defended." He was right, for
the Ardennes are traversed by few roads, and those are narrow and easily blocked by light forces, provided there were enough of them.

When, on the morning of May 10, 1940, the French General Staff learned that the Germans had launched their long-anticipated offensive, one officer said to Chief of Staff Maurice Gamelin, "So it is the Dyle Plan, no?" Gamelin looked up and replied, "What else can we do?"

And, indeed, everything went according to plan, the German plan. At the first sign of the German offensive (the feint into the Netherlands and northern Belgium) the French and British leapt forward into Belgium. Elements of the French Seventh Army, on the extreme left, advanced something like 150 miles in the first forty-eight hours, one of the most impressive motor marches by a large force to that time. By nightfall on May 12 the Allied spearheads were well into the
Netherlands and Belgium. And at that same moment the German main blow fell. Nearly a dozen armored and motorized divisions emerged from the Ardennes to fall upon second-line French forces near Sedan. The German movement had not only been undetected but virtually unimpeded, for the Ardennes had hardly been "adequately defended."

Allied strength in the region consisted of two Belgian light infantry divisions and some French cavalry, who despite heroic efforts only managed to slow the Germans down by a few hours.
The French defenses at Sedan crumbled quickly under the extraordinary strength and violence of the German offensive. Within a day the Germans were across the Meuse and heading west through a fifty-mile gap they had torn in the French front. A few days more and the Germans were halfway across France despite often heroic attempts to impede them. And late on May 20 the Germans reached the English Channel near Abbeville, effectively pocketing nearly forty British, French, and Belgian divisions.

Then came the high drama of Dunkirk, the German offensive southward, the fall of Paris, and the surrender of France. And through it all the Maginot Line remained virtually unscathed. So the Maginot Line had worked, "worked" in the sense that it had canalized the German offensive into Belgium. Despite this "success" one somehow suspects that the French might have spent their money better elsewhere.

Article from Dirty Little Secrets of WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

^^

Be back soon.

Wrong link, that's the attack on Britain, here's a proper link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

THE MAGINOT LINE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING IN 1940


Often overlooked, fixed defenses had an important role in World War II. Of the many fortified positions that influenced the course of the war (from the Gustav Line in Italy to the numerous fortified islands in the Pacific) none was so extensive as France's Maginot Line. Nor have any
been so misunderstood in the popular imagination.

The seeds of the Maginot Line were sown in the trench slaughter of World War I. After much debate, in the late 1920s the French began to develop an elaborate system of fortifications on their frontier with Germany. Named after a war minister who had lost an arm at Verdun,
the Maginot Line was designed to prevent a direct German invasion of France by making such an attempt prohibitively costly in lives and time, permitting the French to husband their resources in the rear for a decisive counterstroke with mobile forces.

The basic concept was by no means as absurd as it would appear in retrospect. Among the greatest fortification experts in the world since the seventeenth century, the French were fully aware that their pro posed new fortified zone (it was not a "line" at all) was not impregnable.
But it would be so difficult to break that it would deter a German offensive into northeastern France. Unable to deliver a swift, decisive blow against it, the Germans would have to give up all thought of war with France, or accept a protracted war of attrition, or find an alternative
way to carry on the war. It was this last that French policymakers perceived as the most likely eventuality, specifically a German thrust into Belgium. And such an undertaking by a revitalized Germany would inevitably bring Great Britain into the war on the side of France, a necessity given France's manpower inferiority vis-A-vis Germany's.

So the principal function of the Maginot Line was to canalize a German offensive into Belgium, where it could be met by motorized French armies supported by British resources. This plan had the added (if unspoken) advantage of having the horrors of war visited upon Belgium rather than on France.

As built, the Maginot Line was a wonder to behold (as, indeed, its remains still are). It consisted of a loose belt of fortifications starting a few miles inside France. The defensive zone varied from five to ten miles in depth, liberally seasoned with sunken forts, redoubts, pillboxes, observation towers, tank traps, and other works. These works were designed to make maximum use of available ground, which already favored the defense, as northeastern France (Alsace and, Lorraine) is rather mountainous, often heavily forested, and occasionally marshy. Most positions (which were all gastight) were mutually supporting, and all were capable of holding out independently for extended periods if necessary. In some of the more densely fortified areas the principal works were linked together by underground railroads to permit the rapid movement of reinforcements and munitions.

Actually only about eighty-seven miles of the Franco-German frontier were covered by permanent works, at the extraordinary cost of 80.5 million francs per mile (about $20 million in 1930s dollars and 360 million in 2008 dollars). These works covered the most vulnerable areas. Less vulnerable areas (such as the thirty-mile Sarre Gap) were to be protected in time of war by demolitions, waterlines (such as the Rhine itself), and inundations, covered by combat troops
in field fortifications. Despite the enormous expenditure, over 7 billion francs (nearly $30 billion in today's dollars), the system was not fully complete by 1940, but sufficiently so to have precisely the deterrent effect for which the French had hoped.

There seems little doubt that the Maginot Line was more or less impenetrable from a frontal attack, at least at a price the Germans were willing to pay. Certainly German war planners proposed nothing more than demonstrations against the line in the event of war, preferring instead
to go into Belgium, precisely as the French expected. French planning for the anticipated German offensive into Belgium presumed that the Germans would come more or less as they had in 1914, a massive wheeling drive across the northern Belgian plain and then southward into France. To meet this, the French allocated the best part of their army (about thirty divisions, including virtually all of their dozen motorized and light armored divisions) to their left flank, from whence, in company with the fully motorized British, they would boldly advance into Belgium
in the event of a German invasion, to meet the enemy along the Dyle River, east of Brussels for a decisive battle.

In their initial planning for their 1940 offensive against France, the Germans actually came up with a plan that more or less was what the French expected of them, a holding action against the Maginot Line with a straightforward drive across the Belgian plain, taking advantage of the
superior mobility and effectiveness of their seventeen armored and motorized divisions. The objective was to secure as much of the country as possible in anticipation of future offensives. Although this plan met with the approval of the General Staff, Hitler was dissatisfied. The fiihrer
wanted a quick win to maintain his popularity, and the plan suggested a protracted struggle. A relatively junior officer, Erich von Manstein, thereupon came up with a more complex, bolder, and riskier plan.

Under the new plan, a portion of the army, including some armored and motorized formations supported by airborne troops, would attack directly into Belgium and the Netherlands as a feint to draw Allied reserves northward. Meanwhile the bulk of the army would attack through the Ardennes, a rugged, heavily forested region covering most of Luxembourg plus adjacent portions of France and Belgium.

The idea was to slice through the Allied forces, creating an enormous pocket in Belgium, perhaps winning the war in one grand offensive. This new plan appealed to Hitler's sense of grandeur, despite the risks which were considerable. Many years earlier Marshal Philippe Petain, hero of World War I, had been asked about the possibilities of a German offensive in this very area, to which he replied, "The Ardennes are impenetrable, if adequately defended." He was right, for
the Ardennes are traversed by few roads, and those are narrow and easily blocked by light forces, provided there were enough of them.

When, on the morning of May 10, 1940, the French General Staff learned that the Germans had launched their long-anticipated offensive, one officer said to Chief of Staff Maurice Gamelin, "So it is the Dyle Plan, no?" Gamelin looked up and replied, "What else can we do?"

And, indeed, everything went according to plan, the German plan. At the first sign of the German offensive (the feint into the Netherlands and northern Belgium) the French and British leapt forward into Belgium. Elements of the French Seventh Army, on the extreme left, advanced something like 150 miles in the first forty-eight hours, one of the most impressive motor marches by a large force to that time. By nightfall on May 12 the Allied spearheads were well into the
Netherlands and Belgium. And at that same moment the German main blow fell. Nearly a dozen armored and motorized divisions emerged from the Ardennes to fall upon second-line French forces near Sedan. The German movement had not only been undetected but virtually unimpeded, for the Ardennes had hardly been "adequately defended."

Allied strength in the region consisted of two Belgian light infantry divisions and some French cavalry, who despite heroic efforts only managed to slow the Germans down by a few hours.
The French defenses at Sedan crumbled quickly under the extraordinary strength and violence of the German offensive. Within a day the Germans were across the Meuse and heading west through a fifty-mile gap they had torn in the French front. A few days more and the Germans were halfway across France despite often heroic attempts to impede them. And late on May 20 the Germans reached the English Channel near Abbeville, effectively pocketing nearly forty British, French, and Belgian divisions.

Then came the high drama of Dunkirk, the German offensive southward, the fall of Paris, and the surrender of France. And through it all the Maginot Line remained virtually unscathed. So the Maginot Line had worked, "worked" in the sense that it had canalized the German offensive into Belgium. Despite this "success" one somehow suspects that the French might have spent their money better elsewhere.

Article from Dirty Little Secrets of WWII.

I read the Rommel Papers, he attacked the weak extension of the line, there was little resistance. Dont make ur article too huge!

Blitzkrieg is a popular name for an offensive operational-level military doctrine which involves an initial bombardment followed by the employment of motorized mobile forces attacking with speed and surprise to prevent an enemy from implementing a coherent defense. The founding principles of these types of operations were developed in the 20th century by various nations, and adapted in the years after World War I, largely by the German Wehrmacht, to incorporate modern weapons and vehicles as a method to help avoid the stalemate of trench warfare and linear warfare in future conflicts. The first practical implementations of these concepts coupled with modern technology were instituted by the Wehrmacht in the opening theatres of World War II.
The strategy was particularly effective to the German invasions of Western Europe and initial operations in the Soviet Union. These operations were dependent on surprise penetrations, general enemy unpreparedness and an inability to react swiftly enough to the attacker's offensive operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

NOT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

U know wat? i'm going to sleep.

here u go:

GERMAN RAIDERS IN THE PACIFIC

The operations of the German auxiliary cruisers covered the period from April 1940 to December 1942. In all, ten ships were employed, one of them making two cruises. Five were destroyed during their cruises in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, one was destroyed by an explosion and fire in harbour at Yokohama, and another was damaged in the English Channel and returned to Germany. That they were efficient fighting ships of their type was shown by the fact that one raider in three separate actions outranged and damaged two British armed merchant cruisers and sank a third, HMS Voltaire. Another raider, the Kormoran, was responsible for the loss with all hands of HMAS Sydney, though she herself was sunk by that cruiser.

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Epi-c1-WH2-1Epi-j.htmlTen ships? How's that "most"?

have any of u ppl heard of the Bismark? It took the whole Royal Navy & Support from the Royal Air Force just to sink that 1 ship because it sank Britain's best ship. I think you wouldn't call that a dinky boat.
Nor would I, and nor was I referring to the Kriegmarine's warships when I talked about dinky boats. I was talking about the transport ships.

Probably, but then again, there's the distance factor. British defensive squadrons could resupply and intercept in much less time than it took for the Luftwaffe to do the same, and of course there's the whole question of radar and knowing where and when to pounce. Quite a few advantages for the British really.
Indeed.



Well, that really depends on where the resources are tied up. If Germany didn't open a 2nd front, they would have had a lot more to toss at Britain over time than they did in the course of the war.

Well, yes, but whether they open the second front, it would eventually have been opened up for them. They really had no choice but to strike when they did.


Very true, but if you take out the RAF, including the Lancaster bombers, then some of their planned superweapons would have been completed, one notable example being the V3 supergun/rocket hybrid and it's launch complex. A facility like that, along with plans to supply the complex with hundreds of V3s and V2s over the course of weeks would have allowed Nazi Germany to do to London and other major cities what it did to Sevastopol, only worse.

Something like that would have massively changed the course of history I suspect.
Probably. It certainly would have eventually led to a rather different Cold War, and most certainly a different after-war German/British relationship.



The British were a very hardened people, I'll give them that, but they would have had a rather large problem with the weapons shortages, especially with the losses in Dunkirk. I mean, they were essentially giving Home Guard troops oversized antitank grenades with instructions to run close, slap the tank with it, and run away before it exploded.

They would have put up one intense fight, no doubt, but if the Warsaw uprising, and it's subsequent quelling, were any indication, the German army would have been quite capable of suppressing it with selective scorched earth (and people) tactics.
They'd be more forceful than that. I realize we have very little information to base what I'm about to suggest on, but I would suspect that an occupied democracy would have much harder fighting partisans than an occupied country that is not a democracy, or that hasn't been a democracy for very long.

That is to say that they would feel more strongly about their freedom.

Or maybe that's just an American viewpoint. I don't know.



Maybe, it's quite possible. But at the same time, it wasn't as if there weren't anti-communist elements inside the states with high positions that weren't adverse to the idea of forming an alliance with Nazi Germany to wipe out the communist threat. If Germany could take the British Isles, even for a while, it's not impossible that it could have worked out some sort of pact with the United States.

Of course, the question also remains to be asked as to whether the time and resources spent would have been different. If Germany hadn't expended so much for it's immediate war effort with the 2 front war, Heisenberg might have managed to get a bit more resources put in his atomic program. The Germans might have had a few false starts in it, but they did get on the right track eventually.

Germany getting the bomb would have spelled the end of any Soviet invasion. V2s of the time wouldn't be able to carry them, but they certainly had other means of delivery.
Oh, certainly there were potential ways for Germany to win the war, but I honestly don't see it happening unless some very substantial changes were to occur prior to September 1st, 1939. After that, history was inevitably led towards a German defeat. The only question was how and when.

Ten ships? How's that "most"?

Remember, the German ships were new, there were only a few WWI ships (if any), The Kreigsmarine had superior firepower and armour.

I don't think Goering had anything to do with Dachau. The first German camp.


Camps such as this were being used by the British in the Boer War, and by the Spanish even earlier.He might be referring to Göring's involvement in the Wannsee conference, being the highest member of the Nazi government to have issued orders concerning the Final Solution.

Hilters downfall came from exactly the same reason Napoleon Bonaparte's did, before him.
Spreading ones forces too thin, in poor conditions, under supplied, and across the asian continent, in winter.

He could not hope to hold that much territory, even with Japans help, for long.
Ultimately, he couldnt even hold Germany.

Hilters downfall came from exactly the same reason Napoleon Bonaparte's did, before him.
Spreading ones forces too thin, in poor conditions, under supplied, and across the asian continent, in winter.

He could not hope to hold that much territory, even with Japans help, for long.
Ultimately, he couldnt even hold Germany.That implies he would have won if he'd avoided those things. In the end, it's unlikely Germany could have held out against the Soviet Union's and United States' industrial output or managed to negate that without recklessly extending its forces.

Indeed.


Despite the advantages though, if the Luftwaffe had pressed just a bit more for a bit longer, Britain would have been out of experienced pilots, combat ready craft, and a significant portion of it's air defense measures. Germany would have been able to run bombing campaigns with near impunity then.


Well, yes, but whether they open the second front, it would eventually have been opened up for them. They really had no choice but to strike when they did.

I'm not sure about that. If Germany had made better deals with Japan and successfully taken the oil refineries with their Afrika Korps, they could have dickered them into harassing the Eastern Soviet border, keeping them busy until Britain was largely pacified before launching a full scale two front offensive into Russia.


Probably. It certainly would have eventually led to a rather different Cold War, and most certainly a different after-war German/British relationship.

Rather. Come to think of it, a successful demonstration of the V3 complex with it's extreme range would probably have led to more such constructions, with even more range, being produced in the Eastern front against Russia, maybe giving them that edge they needed to hit the Urals.


They'd be more forceful than that. I realize we have very little information to base what I'm about to suggest on, but I would suspect that an occupied democracy would have much harder fighting partisans than an occupied country that is not a democracy, or that hasn't been a democracy for very long.

That is to say that they would feel more strongly about their freedom.

Or maybe that's just an American viewpoint. I don't know.

The Warsaw uprising was very hard fought, seeing as how it was mostly fought by Jewish resistance fighters who realized that losing meant their complete annihilation. Remember, Warsaw was basically an extermination camp lite, starvation style. It wasn't a question of fighting for their country. It was fighting for their survival. You can't fight harder for any other reason.


Oh, certainly there were potential ways for Germany to win the war, but I honestly don't see it happening unless some very substantial changes were to occur prior to September 1st, 1939. After that, history was inevitably led towards a German defeat. The only question was how and when.

Hmmm, not necessarily. If Hitler had pushed onto Dunkirk, Britain would have lost a significant portion of it's fighting force in addition to the material loss. Pushing that advantage along with the destruction of the RAF and successful completion and demonstration of the V3 superweapon complex would have given Hitler a supreme bargaining position against Britain. The Channel would have become a deathtrap for any major capital ship, and he would have been able to bombard London with impunity from the safety of France.

With those, he could force Britain to capitulate or otherwise except a peace treaty on Germany's terms, since he would be effectively holding the capital hostage. With Britain held hostage, American involvement in that theater comes to a screeching halt. It would be much like the situation with North Korea and South Korea, except America is nowhere near the DMZ, Germany is the one with the doomsday artillery and is dictating terms.

Wrong link, that's the attack on Britain, here's a proper link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

Yes, I know =]

Someone classed Blitzkrieg as the blitz, and vice versa, I was pointing that out. ^^

The Germans lost due to politicians interfering in war. Hitler much to the chagrin of the German High Command dictated many unwise decisions.

Despite all this. I have the highest respect for the German conduct and military in World War II. I doubt in the modern time there was an army as effective and able with their limited resources as the German military in WWII.

German veterans after the war proudly stated 4 months to Moscow, 4 years to Berlin. Which shows the ardor and bitterness the German soldiers fought to slow the Soviet offensive. Considering it takes even in those days a roughly 4-5 day car drive from one city to the other keeping the Soviets at bay for so long was quite a task in resistance.

I am also often amused at US war films and shows. That seem to depict US forces mowing down one Wehrmacht and SS soldiers after the other while taking almost no casualties. While the truth of the matter was with the exception of possibly half a dozen battles the US always took harder losses in battle than the Germans. Whether on the offense or on the defense (such as battle of Bulge).

But all the glory talk and war talk is on a certain level a slight bit repulsive. Here is a nice clip which shows another side of the horrors of war;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqt1LhkJSnE

He might be referring to Göring's involvement in the Wannsee conference, being the highest member of the Nazi government to have issued orders concerning the Final Solution.

Fair enough.

Despite the advantages though, if the Luftwaffe had pressed just a bit more for a bit longer, Britain would have been out of experienced pilots, combat ready craft, and a significant portion of it's air defense measures. Germany would have been able to run bombing campaigns with near impunity then.

That'd have lengthened the war, but it wouldn't have saved the Germans. Assuming the United States weighs in at some point--as they surely would--the Germans are screwed. The amount of screwing and when it takes place is all that would be changed.


I'm not sure about that. If Germany had made better deals with Japan and successfully taken the oil refineries with their Afrika Korps, they could have dickered them into harassing the Eastern Soviet border, keeping them busy until Britain was largely pacified before launching a full scale two front offensive into Russia.

I don't know exactly how much that would have accomplished for the Japanese, considering how tied down they were already in China, but that certainly would have made things harder for the Russians, because Vladivostok was the primary port at which the U.S. Lend-Lease goods were coming through. They'd have been summarily cut-off following Japanese invasion of Siberia.

But it'd have overstressed the Japanese military, no doubt. They already faltered somewhat with the Manchurian incidents.


Rather. Come to think of it, a successful demonstration of the V3 complex with it's extreme range would probably have led to more such constructions, with even more range, being produced in the Eastern front against Russia, maybe giving them that edge they needed to hit the Urals.

If they had the additional resources.


The Warsaw uprising was very hard fought, seeing as how it was mostly fought by Jewish resistance fighters who realized that losing meant their complete annihilation. Remember, Warsaw was basically an extermination camp lite, starvation style. It wasn't a question of fighting for their country. It was fighting for their survival. You can't fight harder for any other reason.

True enough.

But Warsaw was only one city and was really the only time a full outright uprising occured. The British Isles are a nation.

While they might have fought for different reasons, I daresay they would have had more success, or at least would have kept far more troops tied down. I don't know about some of my British brothers and sisters, but I'd have kept at those Jerry blighters until I made 'em say uncle. [/fakenglish]


Hmmm, not necessarily. If Hitler had pushed onto Dunkirk, Britain would have lost a significant portion of it's fighting force in addition to the material loss. Pushing that advantage along with the destruction of the RAF and successful completion and demonstration of the V3 superweapon complex would have given Hitler a supreme bargaining position against Britain. The Channel would have become a deathtrap for any major capital ship, and he would have been able to bombard London with impunity from the safety of France.

With those, he could force Britain to capitulate or otherwise except a peace treaty on Germany's terms, since he would be effectively holding the capital hostage. With Britain held hostage, American involvement in that theater comes to a screeching halt. It would be much like the situation with North Korea and South Korea, except America is nowhere near the DMZ, Germany is the one with the doomsday artillery and is dictating terms.

I'm honestly not so sure about that. I can't see the British under Churchill surrendering even in that sort of situation, to be perfectly honest. Maybe if Churchill lost an election...

The Germans lost due to politicians interfering in war. Hitler much to the chagrin of the German High Command dictated many unwise decisions.

Despite all this. I have the highest respect for the German conduct and military in World War II. I doubt in the modern time there was an army as effective and able with their limited resources as the German military in WWII.

German veterans after the war proudly stated 4 months to Moscow, 4 years to Berlin. Which shows the ardor and bitterness the German soldiers fought to slow the Soviet offensive. Considering it takes even in those days a roughly 4-5 day car drive from one city to the other keeping the Soviets at bay for so long was quite a task in resistance.

I am also often amused at US war films and shows. That seem to depict US forces mowing down one Wehrmacht and SS soldiers after the other while taking almost no casualties. While the truth of the matter was with the exception of possibly half a dozen battles the US always took harder losses in battle than the Germans. Whether on the offense or on the defense (such as battle of Bulge).

But all the glory talk and war talk is on a certain level a slight bit repulsive. Here is a nice clip which shows another side of the horrors of war;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqt1LhkJSnE


I have the utmost respect for the German forces aswell as ours.

With these films, you have to realise that are just a work of fiction.

When I was studying the Second World War for my History A level, my specialist subject was the equipment used by all sides. I have to say, the Germans had an edge on all of us.

Hopefully I'll learn more if I get accepted to a War Studies Course at Canterbury Uni =D

I always get sick when I think about WWII or Adolph Hitler and what it did to the entirety of Europe. It makes me think of Fancisco Franco, it makes me think of the banning of regional dialects in Spain. It makes me think of family members I'll never meet. It makes me think of the sadness of not having my grandparents here because they can't stomach living in their birth country on account of the horrors they saw there.

I don't know where Hitler and Nazi Germany went wrong. I just wish they'd never existed to begin with.

That implies he would have won if he'd avoided those things. In the end, it's unlikely Germany could have held out against the Soviet Union's and United States' industrial output or managed to negate that without recklessly extending its forces.

I think If he had not done these things, he could at the very least, held the Rhineland and the Sudetenland indefinately, and made any such attempt to remove that control too costly.

He made the same mistake many despots before him made. Became too greedy to hold territory, while stretching his forces far too thin, all the while making his own country undefensible.

Had America not been provoked by Pearl Harbor, we might not have entered the conflict at all. This would have meant that Russia would have to eventually deal with both nations.

He made the same mistake many despots before him made. Became too greedy to hold territory, while stretching his forces far too thin, all the while making his own country undefensible.

Not too greedy, too paranoid, he was skating on thin ice already, he felt he had to attack.

Doesn't anyone play strategic war games, chess even?

I think If he had not done these things, he could at the very least, held the Rhineland and the Sudetenland indefinately, and made any such attempt to remove that control too costly.Unlikely. Germany wouldn't have had the fuel to field airplanes and much less tanks to defend itself.

Not too greedy, too paranoid, he was skating on thin ice already, he felt he had to attack.

Doesn't anyone play strategic war games, chess even?Diplomacy.

Diplomacy.

Oh lord I lost hours to that game :)

Decisions are easy to analyse in hindsight but analysis is meaningless without taking in human factors, one cannot predict what would have happened, some of the best made plans are laid to waste by the unforeseen consequences of a decision, or the reactions to them.

War is a game of second guessing the other players hand.

That'd have lengthened the war, but it wouldn't have saved the Germans. Assuming the United States weighs in at some point--as they surely would--the Germans are screwed. The amount of screwing and when it takes place is all that would be changed.

No. If the British Isles had been lost or otherwise locked out of American reach, the only way to strike Germany would have been via a transatlantic invasion force. The Americans had enough trouble with the D-day landings (which curiously enough, the British and Canadian landings went off much better). This was with the help of the Royal Navy (IIRC) and local air superiority helping the invasion.

With Britain out of the fight, things change significantly. And let's not forget British intelligence with ULTRA and similar intelligence coups. Without those, it's not likely that Enigma would have been cracked as early as it was, giving Kriegsmarine U boats a much better time of it.

In that war, Britain would have been the key launching point for an invasion into Europe or defending against one.


I don't know exactly how much that would have accomplished for the Japanese, considering how tied down they were already in China, but that certainly would have made things harder for the Russians, because Vladivostok was the primary port at which the U.S. Lend-Lease goods were coming through. They'd have been summarily cut-off following Japanese invasion of Siberia.

But it'd have overstressed the Japanese military, no doubt. They already faltered somewhat with the Manchurian incidents.

Definitely. Japanese infantry and mechanized troops may have had a lot of spirit, but their equipment was sub par compared to the powers of the time.

That being said, Japanese ships were better than their Russian counterparts by a generation or so in both kit and doctrine. Turning Vladivostok into rubble or just blockading would have been well within their capabilities. They likely wouldn't have been able to make much gains landwise though. Japanese tanks were rubbish, and the Soviet factories were churning out far superior T-34s by the boatload.


If they had the additional resources.


Suppress the RAF, and without the Lancaster bombers, the tallboys wouldn't have been deployed, much less the dambuster brigade, or the constant firebomb raids in industrial Germany. It would have been a bit like America then, with it's production capability mostly unharmed. It's not impossible that they wouldn't have the resources to build such a complex to bombard the Urals.

Although to be fair, the idea behind the Soviet invasion was more blitzkrieg, so stopping to build that wouldn't be likely until they really bogged down.


While they might have fought for different reasons, I daresay they would have had more success, or at least would have kept far more troops tied down. I don't know about some of my British brothers and sisters, but I'd have kept at those Jerry blighters until I made 'em say uncle. [/fakenglish]


Oh take off your McTavish moustache. It's not fooling anyone. :p


I'm honestly not so sure about that. I can't see the British under Churchill surrendering even in that sort of situation, to be perfectly honest. Maybe if Churchill lost an election...

That would really depend. The V1 and V2 weapons in use and Blitz on London were a waste of resources. The former because of British counter intel that messed up German targeting and the latter because they didn't do much.

The planned V3 complex on the other hand, would have been capable of launching many times more missiles than the V2 sites, allowing them to saturate London with fire rather than bits and pieces with a handful of missiles every other week.

If they could have pulled it off, a true firestorm engulfing London, it would have been extremely demoralizing to the British people. Churchill would likely be forced to pull a miracle out of his hat or make concessions to Germany.

Not too greedy, too paranoid, he was skating on thin ice already, he felt he had to attack.

Doesn't anyone play strategic war games, chess even?

I play Chess.

and I'm a huge fan of the Total War series.

Did Russia have oil fields back then?

It DID in certain places, but most of it was either under developed or undeveloped entirely.

It DID in certain places, but most of it was either under developed or undeveloped entirely.

True. Remember it still was of value. One of the Stalingrad attack objectives (other than the propaganda boost of taking a city named after Stalin) was to secure the city for a second army group to come down and take the oil fields further south. By then it was hoped that Afrika Korps would of completed their objectives and of been shipped up to help in this theatre.

Unlikely. Germany wouldn't have had the fuel to field airplanes and much less tanks to defend itself.

you know the Germans invested a means to turn coal into Fuel. it cost more in time and money but to defend a small area he could have done it.